R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The plaintiff-appellants are challenging the order dated 6.10.05 passed by the District Judge, Baran whereby the learned Judge has allowed to second temporary injunction application of respondent No. 1 and 2.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 4.3.05 against respondent Nos. 1 to 5. According to the plaint, a land measuring 1.92 hectares bearing Khasra No. 171 situated in Village Gopalpura, Tehsil & District Baran was in equal shares of appellant No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3. Since no partition had taken place between the parties, each one of them had an equal share as a coparcener in the said land. After the death of the original land holder, Shri Goverdhan, who happened to be the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of respondent No. 3 and grandfather of appellant No. 2, mutation was opened in the name of respondent No. 3 and in the name of appellants. However, respondent No. 3 used to consume 'Charas' and other narcotic 5 substances. Allegedly, he lost his mental balance. In an unfit state of mind, the respondent No. 3 sold the half share of the total agricultural land to respondent No. 1 and 2 Mohd. Rafiq and Rais Ahmed, on 3.3.05. And a sale-deed was executed on 4.3.05. However, according to the appellant the said share could not be sold to the respondent No. 1 and 2 as the land belongs to the Joint Hindu Family where each and every coparcener has an equal share. Such a share could not be sold without the consent of the other members of the family. It was further alleged that on 4.4.05 the respondent No. 1 and 2 tried to forcefully overtake the possession of the said land. Therefore, the appellant filed the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 5 4.3.05 and further prayed for permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1 and 2. Along with the said suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short) was also filed.
(3.) The respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted their reply to the plaint as D well as to the temporary injunction application. According to them, respondent No. 3 is absolutely hale and hearty and in a fit state of mind. In order to start a grossery store, the respondent No. 3 has sold his share in a fit state of mind. Therefore, respondent No. 1 and 2 claimed to be bonafide purchaser. They further alleged that appellant No. 1 is trying to change the s nature of the land from agricultural to residential. She has already constructed a plinth up to two feet of height upon 2000 Sq. Ft. of land on the southern side of the agricultural land. She is also trying to carve out residential plots in the land and to sell the same to other persons. Therefore, the respondent No. 1, who claimed to be the bonafide purchaser prayed that temporary injunction application should be dismissed.;