Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal was filed by the original -appellant -plaintiff Smt. Jamuna Devi wife of late Shri Triveni Prasad Sharma, challenging the order dated 25.07.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Misc. Civil Case No. 38/2009, whereby the trial Court had dismissed the application of the appellant for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. During the pendency of this appeal the original appellant died and her legal heirs have been brought on record. In the instant case, it appears that the original -appellant Smt. Jamuna Devi and the respondent No. 1 Kishan happened to be the sister and brother, and the respondent No. 3 happened to be the son of the appellant, and the respondent No. 2 happened to be the wife of the respondent No. 3. The appellant Smt. Jamuna Devi had filed the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.12.2008 executed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, and had also filed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondents in respect of the land in question.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, for the appellants that the appellant Smt. Jamuna Devi was the co -sharer alongwith the respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit land, and therefore the respondent No. 1 could not have sold the suit land to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. According to him, late Shri Tursi Ram had no authority to execute any will in respect of the land in question as the said land belonged to Shri Harphool, the father of Shri Tursi Ram, and therefore, as an ancestral property. He submitted that the trial Court has mis -appreciated the documents on record and wrongly rejected the application of the appellant. However, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. J.P. Goyal, for the respondents submits that the respondent No. 1 had become owner of the suit land by virtue of the will executed by his father Tursi Ram, which will has not been challenged by the appellant at any point of time. He also submitted that name of the appellant was never shown as khatedar in the revenue record and she could not be said to be the co -sharer in the suit land. 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 the trial Court has rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove any prima facie case in her favour. As such, it will be a matter of evidence as to whether the original -appellant -plaintiff was the co -sharer in the land in question alongwith the respondent No. 1 or not, and whether the respondent No. 1 had any right to sell the suit land to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, who happened to be the daughter -in -law and son respectively of the original -appellant. Since the appellant has failed to prove prima facie that she was the co -sharer in the land in question, and since the names of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have already been entered in the revenue record, by virtue of the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 1, the Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;