MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendant No. 1 and 5 to 10 assailing the order dated 10.02.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Tonk (for short 'the trial court ') whereby application filed by Respondent No. 1-plaintiff seeking temporary injunction has been allowed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff ') filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 09.02.1989 and permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants, wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and 4 are the sons of Late Mohd. Shafeeq. Mohd. Shakeel was also son of Mohd. Shafeeq. The defendant No. 2 is the widow and defendant No. 5 to 10 are children of Mohd. Shafeeq. Late Mohd. Shafeeq have three houses situated in Tonk, The plaintiffs pleaded that Shakeela building, which is situated in Karigaron ka Mohalla, was given to him by way of will executed by his father Mohd Shafeeq on 25.08.1990. Thereafter, the plot, which is situated in west side of Shakeela building was also orally gifted (Hiba) to him on 21.04.1992 in presence of the witnesses. The demarcation of the land was also mentioned in the plaint. The defendant No, 4 Raeis Khan filed a suit for division before the District and Session Judge Tonk against the legal representatives of Mohd. Shafeeq, which is still pending before the court. Late Mohd. Shakeel and defendant No. 1 prepared a false sale deed in respect of disputed plot, which is situated in west side of Shakeela building on 09.02.1989. Mohd. Shafeeq did not execute any sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1. Mohd. Raeis filed a suit no. 38/2011 before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Tonk for division of above mentioned disputed plot wherein the defendant No. 1 filed the written statement and mentioned in respect of the sale deed dated 09.02.1989, then the fact towards the sale deed came in knowledge of plaintiff.
(2.) The defendant No. 1 and 5 to 10-appellants filed written statement and denied the contents of the plaint and stated that the Mohd. Shafeeq sold the land to defendant No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 5,000/- on 09.02.1989 and handed over the possession of the land. Mohd. Shafeeq put his signatures in Urdu and Hindi languages on the sale deed. The sale deed was drafted by Advocate Abdul Kadir and he also put his signature on the sale deed. The defendant no. 1 has the possession on the land since the date of sale deed 09.02.1989. The plaintiff Mohd. Umar executed a registered gift (Hliba) on dated 19.11.2004 in favour of his wife for Shakila building on the basis of the will dated 25.08.1990, which was executed by Mohd. Shafeeq. It is mentioned in the map which is enclosed with the registered gift (Hiba) dated 19.11.2004 that the disputed land belongs to his father Mohd. Shafeeq. The map did not disclose that the land belongs to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the Mohd. Raeis also filed a suit no. 26/2005 (Mohd. Raeis v. Mohd. Shakeel) wherein the disputed property was not shown with the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the Municipality also had given permission to Defendant no. 1 for construction on disputed land on 26.01.2002. Mohd. Raeis also filed a suit no. 38/2011 (Mohd. Raeis v. Mohd. Shakeel) wherein the defendant no. 3 Mohd. Aarif filed a reply on 21.07.2011 and admitted that his father Late Mohd. Shafeeq sold the land to defendant No. 1. Mohd. Raeis defendant No. 4 filed an application for withdrawal of suit no. 38/2011, wherein it was mentioned that his father Late Mohd. Shafeeq sold the land to defendant no. 1 for consideration of Rs. 5,000/- on 09.02.1989. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff lodged an F.I.R. No. 372/2012 for the offence under Sections 420, 468 I.P.C. against the defendant No. 1 and other persons in respect of the sale deed dated 09.02.1989, wherein the police during the investigation found that the plaintiff lodged the false F.I.R. and submitted the F.R. before the concerning Court.
(3.) The trial court, after the hearing the parties, allowed application for temporary injunction filed by the Respondent No. 1-plaintiff and directed both the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of disputed plot vide order dated 10.02.2014. Hence, the appellants-Defendants No. 1 and 5 to 10 have preferred instant appeal.;