1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2812/2009. Kundan Singh. VS Ratan Lal @ Ratan Singh & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2812/2009. Kundan Singh. VERSUS Ratan Lal @ Ratan Singh and Others. 26.05.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Rajeev Sogarwal, for the appellant. ***** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for the grant of temporary injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant No.1 Ratan Lal had entered into an agreement on 28.09.2004 for the sale of the land in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and as per the condition No.1, the defendant had admitted to have taken an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the plaintiff and mortgage the land with the plaintiff with the stipulation that either he would return the amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 24% p.a. on or before 31.12.2004 and redeem the mortgage failing which he would sell the land in favour of the plaintiff if he fails to redeem the land on or before 01.01.2005. It is further the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant No.1 2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2812/2009. Kundan Singh. VS Ratan Lal @ Ratan Singh & Ors. Ratan Lal sold the land in question to the respondent No.3 Bhagwan Das vide registered sale-deed dated 16.05.2007. The plaintiff-appellant, therefore, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 28.09.2004 for sale of the land in his favour and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 16.05.2007, executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the respondent No.3 Bhagwan Das. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 06.05.2009. The learned court below firstly came to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 prima facie does not have one half share in the land in question and his share comes to only about 1/8th as such he could not have agreed to sell the land. The learned court below has also found that so far as the possession over the land in dispute is concerned, the plaintiff has failed to prove the same. It, therefore, decided the question of prima facie case against the plaintiff appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as these facts are not in dispute. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed summarily. The stay application also stands dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.