1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT Smt. Sadhna Saxena & Anr. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1825/2010) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Date of Order :- 27th July, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Arun Sharma, for the appellants. The appellants have challenged the order dated 31.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No.1 and has restrained the appellants from alienating the property in dispute. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellants have a land measuring 0.45 Hectare in Khasra No.97 in village Borkhandi, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota. The said land was a joint property of four brothers and therefore, the appellants had to purchase 1/4th share from each brother. One of the brothers is respondent No.1, Kanhaiya Lal and 1/4th share in his name was sold by his wife, Smt. Manbhar Bai, the respondent No.2, as according to her, the respondent No.1 had already expired. She also showed that after the death of the respondent No.1, his land was transferred in the name of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the Revenue Records and mutation proceeding was completed. Therefore, the appellants purchased that share from her through a registered sale-deed executed on 31.03.2006 and paid full consideration to her. After four years of the 2 transaction, the respondent No.1 filed a suit before the learned trial court stating that his wife had fraudulently sold the share of his land though he was still alive. The respondent No.1 also filed a stay application praying that the appellants be restrained from transferring the land to any other person during the pendency of the suit. The appellants pleaded that they have purchased the land in good faith by a registered sale-deed. However, vide order dated 31.05.2010, the learned trial court granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No.1 and restrained the appellants from alienating the property in dispute to any other person. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that the appellants happen to be bonafide purchaser. They had bought the property through Smt. Manbhar Bai, the respondent No.2, who also happens to be the wife of respondent No.1, Kanhaiya Lal. Secondly, the respondent No.1, Kanhaiya Lal, is hand-in-gloves with the respondent No.2, his wife Smt. Manbhar Bai. After having sold the property through the respondent No.2 to the appellants, they are trying to back track by having the sale-deed cancelled. Lastly, since the appellants happen to be the bonafide purchase, their right to alienate the property cannot be restricted. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. The issue whether the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are hand- in-gloves with each other and the issue whether the appellants are the bonafide purchaser, can only be decided after the evidence has 3 been tendered during the course of trial. Thus, the learned Judge was justified in not entering into these two issues at the preliminary stage. Since the appellants admit to the fact that they are in possession of the property, they can certainly enjoy the fruit of the property. The only restriction that has been placed upon the appellants is that they cannot alienate the property. However, as the property is in dispute, its further alienation would create third party rights; it would, thus, lead too many legal complications. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting temporary injunction against the appellants. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any perversity or any illegality in the impugned order dated 31.05.2010. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-