Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khemsingh vs Pani Devi on 11 February, 2020
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3658/2019
Khemsingh S/o Shri Omprakash Ji, Aged About 42 Years, B/c
Mali, R/o Nayabas, Balsamand, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Pani Devi W/o Shri Omprakash Ji, B/c Mali, R/o Balsamand,
Mandore, Jodhpur.
2. Virendra Singh S/o Om Prakash, B/c Mali, R/o Balsamand,
Mandore, Jodhpur.
3. Madan Singh S/o Om Prakash, B/c Mali, R/o Balsamand,
Mandore, Jodhpur.
4. Rekha D/o Om Prakash, B/c Mali, R/o Balsamand, Naya
Bas, Mandore, Jodhpur.
5. Biram Singh S/o Achlu Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Balsamand,
Naya Bas, Mandore, Jodhpur.
6. Ganpat Singh S/o Parsa Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Balsamand,
Mandore, Jodhpur.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jodhpur.
8. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Jodhpur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 489/2020
1. Pani Devi W/o Om Prakash, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Balsamand, Mandore, Jodhpur.
2. Virendra Singh S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 40 Years, B/c
Mali, R/o Balsamand, Mandore, Jodhpur.
3. Madan Singh S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 45 Years, B/c
Mali, R/o Balsamand, Mandore, Jodhpur.
4. Rekha D/o Om Prakash, Aged About 43 Years, B/c Mali, R/o
Balsamand, Naya Bas, Mandore, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Khem Singh S/o Om Prakash, B/c Mali, R/o Naya Bas,
(Downloaded on 13/02/2020 at 08:32:22 PM)
(2 of 3)
Balsamand, Jodhpur.
2. Biram Singh S/o Achlu Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Balsamand, Naya
Bas, Mandore, Jodhpur.
3. Ganpat Singh S/o Parsa Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Balsamand,
Mandore, Jodhpur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jodhpur.
5. Tehsildar, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Hari Singh Kachhwaha for the
appellants in Appeal No.3658/2019.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.DLR Vyas for the appellants in
Appeal No.489/2020.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 11/02/2020
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Both the appeals are directed against the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC preferred by the Khem Singh (appellant in appeal no.3658/2019) has been partly rejected.
3. The appeal no.489/2020 has been preferred by the appellants who are wife, sons and daughter of Om Prakash whereas the appeal no.3658/2019 has been preferred by appellant Khem Singh natural son of Om Prakash but it is alleged that he went in adoption to one Gobar Ram.
4. The limited contention by the appellants in appeal no.489/2020 is that the impugned order restraining them from selling the property in question is prejudicial in light of the (Downloaded on 13/02/2020 at 08:32:22 PM) (3 of 3) adoption of Khem Singh already taking place and the property of Gobar Ram being inherited by Khem Singh.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant Khem Singh in appeal no.3658/2019 submits that Khem Singh is natural son of Om Prakash and his rights cannot be denied merely on unsubstantiated allegation of adoption. He also submits that if any construction is made, it shall irretrievably change the property in question.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned Court below has considered all aspects of the matter meticulously while deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and a very judicious order has been passed whereby, one party has been restrained from selling the property in question and at the same time, it has been permitted to use the property by raising necessary construction. The construction in property will not be an irretrievable condition and since it is a dispute within the family, therefore, restriction on selling will protect the parties from damaging other person's rights. Thus, no cause of interference is made out in the impugned order at the instance of the appellants in both the appeals.
7. In view of the above, both these appeals, having no merits, are hereby dismissed.
8. All pending applications also stand dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 171-172-SPhophaliya/-
(Downloaded on 13/02/2020 at 08:32:22 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)