1 S/2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2276/2008 Suresh Kumar Kuldeep Vs. A.C.J. (J.D.) No.2, Jodhpur & Ors. Date of Order :: 9th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.K. Bhaiya, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Hedau, for the respondent No.3 (Caveator). ..... BY THE COURT: At the commencement of the submissions, in response to the query of the Court as put yesterday as to on how much area the existing construction of the petitioner is situated, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on instructions that the petitioner's construction is on an area of 15' x 35' size and then there are steps towards southern side. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the learned Trial Court has been justified in refusing the prayer for temporary injunction as made by the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal by its impugned order dated 26.03.2008 on relevant considerations. Substance of the matter remains that the petitioner claims title on the basis of a sale-deed dated 17.12.2003 2 (Annex.1) whereby the land described therein, a portion of the dimensions of 15' x 35' from out of the land belonging to the predecessor-in-title Shri Pukhraj, was sold to the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the petitioner's construction is situated on 15' x 35' area. This fact is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner and is distinctly and specifically reported in the Commissioner's Report (Annex.5). It appears that the remaining part of the land was sold by the predecessor of the petitioner to the defendant by way of the sale deed dated 01.09.2007 (Annex.3). Though the predecessor of the parties had a Patta in his favour of the land measuring 36' x 90' and there appears some discrepancy in the measurement of the land available at site particularly as stated in the sale-deed executed in favour of the defendant; however, that has got no relevance so far the rights of the petitioner are concerned inasmuch as he has been sold specific property comprised in 15' x 35' size land; and, admittedly, the petitioner has raised construction on 15' x 35' land. The petitioner has got no rights beyond such land. As to how the remaining part of the land is to be dealt with cannot be the concern of the petitioner; and the petitioner could least be held entitled for temporary injunction so as to restrain the defendant from using other part of the land. 3 Having examined the Commissioner's Report (Annex. 5) with reference to the other material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that no case for interference in the orders made by the learned subordinate Courts is made out. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK/