RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
LAWS(RAJ)-2018-9-164
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 11,2018

RAJENDRA SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 04.07.2018, whereby the trial court has dismissed the petitioner-defendant's (hereinafter 'defendant') application to decide issue no.6 i.e as to whether the respondent-plaintiff's (hereinafter 'plaintiff') suit barred by law as a preliminary issue in terms of Order 14, Rule 2 CPC.
(2.) The facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit inter alia for permanent injunction regarding seeking his possession in part of house no.194, Barodia Scheme, Banipark, Jaipur albeit in the name of the defendant-Rajendra Sharma-his real brother. It was submitted that the defendant aforesaid was only the formal purchaser as per the purchase of the house in issue he had also contributed certain sums. It was stated that yet the defendant-Rajendra Sharma taking advantage of the property being registered in his name was seeking to prevent the plaintiff his brother, from enjoying the possession in the suit property and taking steps to exclude him. Injunction from obstruction and user of the house to the extent of the plaintiff's possession was sought. On service of summons in the suit defendant-Rajendra Sharma filed a written statement of denial. He asserted that the suit property was purchased by him alone in his name by a registered sale deed after availing a loan from the bank. The other defendant in the suit one Sharad Kumar Sharma; the brother of the plaintiff however supported the plaintiff's case but in part stated that instead of a suit for permanent injunction, the appropriate remedy was for filing a suit for partition. Subsequent to defendant-Sharad Kumar Sharma's death the same stand was taken by his legal representative-defendant no.2/2-Krishan Kant Sharma.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed 6 issues as under:- 1 - 3TPTT WTT 2 if RTRtccT Wf?KRT % m lifted t f^RT RR R ?+RH if RWT W 1301.2008 Pl^lRd frifT W ^ ^ yRHl41 WfT 2 IRT sfTETT ISc'FR t WRT ^Ri ^ arteuff t? 2 - 3m ^ifr w m ii^ wr t? - yRHi 3 - 3TFTT m ^ffRT TR TR^cT ^ WR"T M ^ t? - yR)di41 wit 2 4 - 3MT ^TRRRf ^ WfT 2 ^ yj-ylcd ylidlfl WIT 2 ^ Allied # t faRlif ^ # 3R ?i# RRTM ^fr; f^r % Wrr ^eRr ^rt rtrt ^RRi arteTrft f?yRldi41 wn 2 5 - 3TPTT ^ WTT 2 ^ ^RT UHlcd wft yR)dl ^ Rnfar ^r: ?im rr^ t ^rt Msnw wrt rrt* rrarteuft t? yRldi<(l w 2 6 - 3TPTT 6cta+itT fef R^ ^ni' iRR t? ylrHl 7 - 3R ?^K? ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.