- (1.) WRIT petition no.17167/2011 has been filed by plaintiff Jai Kishan against order dated 29.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.25/2010, whereby the interim injunction order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Class, No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, has been set aside. Writ petition no.20460/2012 has been filed by defendant Hundal Das against order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No.470/2009, whereby the application filed by Hundal Das under Section 151 of the CPC for taking written statement on record, was dismissed.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Jai Kishan and defendant Hundal Das are real brothers. Plaintiff filed a suit under Order 7 Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure with application for temporary injunction stating therein that he inherited a plot situated at Durgapura, measuring 18x40 feet from his father and till date he has been in its possession. According to the plaintiff, defendant Hudal Das, who happened to be his brother, had no right to sell the disputed plot to defendant Mool Chand Sewani but he had illegal sold the same by an agreement to sell dated 18.03.1986, even though he had no possession over the land. Defendant Mool Chand Sewani came out with plea that defendant Hundal Das had sold the property in question to his father Gopaldas in the year 1986 and since then he has been in possession of the same and is entitled to receive patta from Nagar Nigam, Jaipur.
(3.) SHRI Anil Upman, learned counsel for plaintiff Jai Kishan, has argued that the disputed plot was in possession of his father late Shri Natthar Mal and presently in possession of the plaintiff Jai Kishan. His brother defendant Hundal Das had no right to sell the plot. They were bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff from his own property. He was in possession of the same since 1948 when defendant Hundal Das was not even born. The agreement to sell was neither registered nor exhibited by real owner. Plaintiff is a poor person and if he is dispossessed from the only land he has, he would face hardship and irreparable loss. Shri Anil Upman, learned counsel for plaintiff Jai Kishan, submitted that plaintiff is in possession of the disputed property, therefore, prima facie case was rightly found in favour of plaintiff Jai Kishan and learned appellate court has erred in setting aside the same.;