Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present Misc. Appeals have been filed by the appellants, who were the applicants -plaintiffs in Civil Misc. Case (T.I.) No. 63/2014 (Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. Jagtar Singh) and 64/2010 (Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. Vijay Singh) against the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar by which, the learned Additional District Judge had dismissed application of the appellants -applicants filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for cancellation of the sale deeds in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring 1.949 hectares situated at Chak 7 PTD B, Stone No. 247/359 and Murabba No. 17.
(2.) THE plaintiffs -appellants Mukesh Kumar and Shyar Singh, both sons of Bansi Lal Jat, have filed the present CMAs under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar rejecting the T.I. Application filed by the appellants -applicants in a suit for cancellation of sale deeds filed by them seeking cancellation of the registered sale deeds dated 24.06.2014. By the two registered sale deeds, the father of the present appellants namely, Bansi Lal, transferred the land admeasuring 1.949 hectares at Chak 7 PTD B, Stone No. 247/359, Murabba No. 17; one part of the land was transferred in favour of the defendant Vijay Singh S/o. Amar Singh Rajput and another part of the land was transferred in favour of Jagtar Singh S/o. Pratap Singh Jat.
(3.) THE learned Trial Court has rejected the T.I. Application filed by the present appellants with the following findings, prima facie, against the appellants -plaintiffs in the following manner: - - THE learned counsel Mr. Sanjeet Purohit appearing for the appellants -plaintiffs upon a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yeshwant Laxman Pai Raikar and Anr. v. Laxman V. Singbal and Ors. reported in : 2010 (3) Civil Court Cases 233 (Bombay) urged that the agricultural land in question was an ancestral land and the father Bansi Lal being karta of HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) could not have transferred the land in question in favour of the defendants without taking consent of the other co -parceners including the present appellants -plaintiffs, the sons, and he submitted that the entire consideration for sale is said to have been paid in cash to the seller Banshi Lal, who was an alcoholic addict, which was not a plausible probability and the other part of the agricultural land which was transferred in favour of Jagtar Singh is also doubtful as he alleged that he had paid in cash a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/ - on the spot to the seller at the time of registration of the land in his favour whereas consideration shown in the registered sale deed is far less. Therefore, questioning the right of the transferor father namely, Banshi Lal and as far as for the sale deeds in question, they had filed separate suits for cancellation of sale deeds, in which, this T.I. Application has been filed which has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel further submitted that after hearing the parties, a co -ordinate Bench of this Court has granted an interim order in the present appeals on 10.12.2014 directing the parties to maintain status -quo regarding land in question which order deserves to be maintained during the pendency of the suit and the learned Trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial of the suit.;