Prakash Gupta, J. - (1.) Since both these appeals arise out of the common order dated 15/09/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota, whereby, the applications filed by the plaintiffs -appellants seeking temporary injunction has been rejected, they are being decided by this common order.
(2.) The facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4137/2012 as mentioned in memo of appeal in brief are that plaintiffs Vinay Kumari and Lalit Kumari filed a suit alleging therein that they are members of the Joint Hindu Family and thus are entitled to partition. To appreciate the correct factual position of the case, it will be apposite to mention herein below the pedigree of the parties: -
(3.) Late Onkar Singh was a Jagirdar in the erstwhile Kota State and during his life time, he acquired various properties in Kota, Palayatha, Vinod Kundanpur, Bambooliya, Mirzapur, Sorson, Amba, Akedi etc. Sh. Onkar Singh expired on 27/06/1951 and did not execute any will during his life time and after his death, Ajeet Singh succeeded to the aforesaid properties. He expired on 08/02/1970 and his wife Smt. Nav Nidhi Kumari expired on 14/08/2007 but none of them executed any will during their lifetime. There was no partition of Joint Hindu Family properties and they are continuing as such in which the plaintiffs and defendants have their right. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 being elder members of the Joint HUF, sold some of the aforesaid properties illegally for getting undue benefits without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and when this fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, they decided to seek partition of the Joint HUF properties by meets & bounds. When they asked defendant No. 1 and 2 for partition, defendant No. 2 told them about the released -deed dated 27/09/1971 and decree dated 17/01/1972 passed by District Judge, Kota in favour of the defendant Nos. 5 to 8. On that basis defendant No. 1 and 2 have denied partition. The released -deed dated 27/09/1971 is null and void against the plaintiffs. If on the basis of the said release deed, defendant Nos. 5 to 8 have obtained any decree on 17/01/1972 against defendant No. 1 collusively, it is illegal, unauthorized and ineffective and, therefore, defendant Nos. 5 to 8 do not have any legal right, title or interest over the Joint Hindu Family properties on the basis of the collusive decree dated 17/01/1972. Therefore, the properties as mentioned in the plaint, may be partitioned by meets & bounds. Plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w. S.151 CPC with the prayer to restrain the defendants from selling, alienating, transferring or disposing of the Joint Hindu Family properties further or giving possession thereof to anybody else.;