SBCMA No.1663/2008 Smt. Ishwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Chand & Anr. 1 SBCMA No.1663/2008 Smt. Ishwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Chand & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 16.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the appellants. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants filed the suit for cancellation of the decree obtained by the defendant-respondent no.1 on the ground that the vendor defendant-respondent no.2 – the husband of the plaintiff no.1 and father of the plaintiffs nos. 2 to 5 was insane since 1981 and the defendant no.1 got the agreement to sell on 20th Nov., 1997 from the defendant no.2 – the insane person. It is also submitted that property in question was ancestral property of defendant no.2 and plaintiffs and, therefore, the defendant no.2 alone could not have sold the property. In the suit, the injunction application was submitted by the plaintiffs, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 21st Nov., 2008, hence, this appeal has been preferred by the SBCMA No.1663/2008 Smt. Ishwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Chand & Anr. 2 plaintiffs. The trial court observed that on earlier occasion even in the year 1987, the plaintiff Ishwari Devi filed the suit on behalf of her husband Chain Shanker by becoming the next friend of Chain Shanker wherein the civil court after evidence on 29th June, 1987 held that Chain Shanker is not insane person. The said Chain Shanker defendant no.2 even on 20th Nov., 1997 executed the agreement to sell, which was decreed by the trial court on 30th May, 2008 wherein an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was submitted by Ishwari Devi and Manohar Lal (plaintiffs) for becoming party with the same plea that Chain Shanker is insane, but that application was rejected by the trial court. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs failed to produce any cogent evidence so as to prove insanity of the defendant no.2. Not only this, but the sale in question for which decree was obtained by the defendant no.1 was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs since 2001, yet they did not get any right established in the courts of law by filing any suit for declaration etc. Since the trial court has considered the facts in detail SBCMA No.1663/2008 Smt. Ishwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Chand & Anr. 3 and, thereafter, rejected the application for grant of injunction and has not committed any error of fact or law nor the order is capricious or arbitrary, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order by exercising appellate jurisdiction. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-