Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 23.07.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 6, Jaipur City (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), in Civil Misc. Application No. 15/2007, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the said application of the appellant -plaintiff seeking temporary injunction against the respondent -defendant. At the outset, it is required to be noted that this Court while issuing notice to the respondent, had directed the parties to maintain the status -quo in respect of the disputed property for a period of five weeks, as per the order dt. 27.08.2008. However, it appears that the said order was not extended after the expiry of five weeks, and the appeal remained pending without any substantive progress for about five years. Today, the appeal was heard finally at the admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THE facts in nutshell, giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant -plaintiff has filed the Suit Being No. 45/2007 in the trial Court seeking partition, possession and permanent injunction against the present respondent and Smt. Jaishree Devi and Smt. Devendra Kumari (the defendants). However, the appellant -plaintiff had filed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction only against the present respondent in respect of the immovable property known as Barwara House, on the ground that the respondent -defendant happened to be the brother of the appellant, and that he was causing obstruction to the appellant for going to the disputed property. It was also alleged that the appellant had 1/4th share in the disputed property, and therefore, the respondent could not cause any hindrance to the appellant in using the said share in the disputed property. The said application was resisted by the respondent -defendant by filing the reply, contending inter alia that the appellant -plaintiff was not the legal heir of Raja Man Singh, as he was adopted by Maji Sahib Ratan Kanwar Ji of Thikana Ekara, District Sawai Madhopur on 19.04.1946, and that the appellant was never in possession of any part of the disputed property, nor had any right in the properties left by Raja Man Singh. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, and considering the documents on record, dismissed the said application of the appellant -plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed. It has been sought to be submitted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Kasliwal, for the appellant that the appellant was the son of the Raja Man Singh and had 1/4th share in the property in question. Taking the Court to the impugned order, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that even the trial Court had observed that there was no documents on record to suggest that the appellant was taken in adoption by the then Jagirdar of Thikana Ekara, and on the contrary there were documents to show that the appellant was one of the sons of Raja Man Singh. He further submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the documents on record, and has committed an error in dismissing the application of the appellant. The learned counsel Mr. S.C. Goyal appearing for the learned counsel Mr. P.S. Shukla, for the respondent, however submitted that from the documents on record, it was prima facie established that the appellant was not considered as the legal heir of Raja Man Singh and was also not given any share in the compensation received by Raja Man Singh on the resumption of Thikana Barwara, whereas the appellant, since he was adopted by Maji Sahib Ratan Kanwar Ji of Thikana Ekara, had received the compensation after the resumption of Jagir of the said Thikana Ekara. According to him, the appellant was never in possession of any part of the disputed property and the impugned order passed by the trial Court being just and proper, this Court may not interfere with the same.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that Raja Man Singh was the 'Jagirdar' of Thikana Barwara and he died on 07.04.1976, leaving behind him his wife Rani Rajkumari, and three sons named Laxman Singh, Bhagwati Singh and Shivnarain Singh and one daughter named Devendra Kumari. His wife Rani Rajkumari died on 15.12.2003 and one of the sons i.e. Shivnarain Singh died on 01.01.2003. The present appellant, thereafter filed the suit against the present respondent, one Smt. Devendra Kumari, and Smt. Jaishree Devi seeking partition, and injunction in respect of the suit property known as Barwara House. The application seeking temporary injunction, was filed by the appellant against the present respondent only, as he was allegedly causing obstruction and hindrances to the appellant for going to the disputed property, though the respondent, had contended that the appellant was never in possession of the said property as during the life time of the Raja Man Singh, the appellant was taken in adoption by the Jagirdar of Thikana Ekara.;