P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Appellant-plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with section 104 CPC to assail order dated 21st of August 2017, passed by Addl. District Judge Bali, District Pali, rejecting their application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed and perpetual injunction.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiffs filed aforesaid suit with the averments that first respondent, Vidyadhar, is real uncle of appellant Kantilal and brother-in-law of third appellant, Smt. Pyari Bai. It is also averred that Late Shri Ratan Lal was father of appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7, and husband of third appellant-Smt. Pyari Bai. While referring to the first respondent, it is averred in the plaint that he is real brother of Late Ratan Lal having joint agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 24 and 25 ad-measuring 2.48 hectare situated at village Guda Jaitavtan, Tehsil Rani, District Pali and land ad-measuring 3.6 hectare of Khasra Nos. 336, 339, 340 and 380 at village Tokarla, Tehsil Rani, District Pali. It is also averred in the plaint that both the brothers entered into family settlement and it was decided that deceased Ratan Lal shall own the agricultural land situated in village Guda Jaitavtan and the first respondent shall have right over the agricultural land of the village Tokarla. Appellants specifically pleaded in the plaint that part of agricultural land situated at Guda Jaitavtan has been alienated by first respondent unauthorisedly in favour of second respondent. Therefore, in that background, appellants have craved for issuance of decree for cancellation of sale-deed executed in favour of second respondent and also sought perpetual injunction. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed by the appellant-plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction for preserving the alienated property as it is and maintaining status quo. The respondents contested the temporary injunction application. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard arguments of both the sides, by the order impugned rejected the temporary injunction application.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order.;