// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4401/2007 Chhitar S/o Shri Bhoma Versus Girdhari S/o Shri Bhura Ram and Others Date of Order ::: 09.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Jai Kishan Yogi, Counsel for appellant Shri Jai Raj Tantia, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction in the trial court in respect of disputed property along-with an application for temporary injunction wherein an ex-parte interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff but thereafter the same was vacated and the application for temporary injunction was dismissed vide order dated 16th November, 2007. Being aggrieved with the same, the present appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the disputed property was in joint khatedari of the plaintiff and the // 2 // defendants No.1, 5 and 6, namely, Girdhari, Surajbhan and Dhura. The land, in dispute, was not divided and without division of the property, one of the co-owners, namely, defendant No.1 Girdhari has sold his share and purchaser of the land i.e. defendants No.2 to 4 were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, this was a fit case where the defendants No.2 to 4 ought to have been restrained by way of temporary injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application for temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4, who are the contesting respondents, contended that the defendant No.1 Girdhari had a right to sell his share and he rightly executed the sale-deed in favour of the defendants No.2 to 4. He further contended that the disputed property was given in possession to them, therefore, they are in possession of the same and no interim injunction should be granted in favour of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 16th November, 2007. There is no dispute in between the // 3 // parties that the property in dispute was not partitioned in between the co-owners and one of the co-owners Girdhari sold his share to respondents No.2 to 4. Although Girdhari had a right to sell his share, but unless the property is divided in between the co-owners, each owner presumes to be the owner of every part of the property. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned trial court committed an illegality in dismissing the application of the appellant. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that ends of justice would meet in case the parties to the suit are directed to maintain the status-quo in respect of the property in dispute. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16th November, 2007 is set- aside and it is directed that the parties to the suit shall maintain the status-quo in respect of the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. There will be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//