VINEET KOTHARI,J. - (1.) In the present suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by the plaintiff-appellant-Jeevanram s/o Shri Prabhuram himself in favour of the defendant-Smt.Geeta Devi w/o Late Shri Sitaram, the learned trial court has rejected the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff-appellant, by the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 with the following observations:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that a fraud was played by the defendant upon the plaintiff and though the plaintiff had only mortgaged his agricultural land measuring about 5 bigha in favour of the defendant, the defendant got the impugned sale deed by him, which deserves to be cancelled in the suit filed for this purpose, and therefore, by temporary injunction, the learned trial court ought to have directed the status quo to be maintained by the defendant, and also not to alienate the suit property.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. The registered sale deed cannot be ignored just for askance and the facts averred by the appellant and the documents of different nature having been executed by him in favour of the defendant, are the questions of fact, which are yet to be determined during trial before the learned trial court, whether it was a case of mortgage or actual sale, whether part of the amount has been refunded back, are the questions of facts to be determined by the learned trial court. It is needless to say any further that alienation of the suit property made by the purchaser defendant-Smt. Geeta Devi w/o late Shri Sitaram will remain subject to the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore, the impugned order adequately protects the rights of the present plaintiff-appellant, and thus, the rejection of the temporary injunction application by the learned trial court does not require any interference by this Court at this stage, and the present misc. appeal is thus, found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.;