1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Mahavir & Ors. V/s. Smt. Kamla (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.954/2010) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Date of Order :: July 27, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. R.K. Daga for the appellants. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application for temporary inunction filed by the appellants. The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration and an application for temporary injunction. In the suit, it was contended that the land which is situated in village Hingonia, Sub Tehsil Kanvas, bearing Nos. 193, 541, 554 total measuring 39 bigha and 12 biswas belongs to Srikishan. After the death of Srikishan, the land devolved to his two sons namely, Gopal and Madho. The said land was 2 divided between Gopal and Madho. It was further contended by the plaintiffs that defendant No.1, Smt. Kamla was the wife of Madho. After the death of Madho, Smt. Kamla remarried Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jat under the “Nata” custom. It was further contended that since Smt. Kamla remarried Shri Kanhaiya Lal, her right to the property of the deceased husband came automatically to an end; the mutation No.111 dated 24.02.1974 which was opened in the name of Smt. Kamla was deleted. The mutation was opened in the name of Gopal. It was further stated that Smt. Kamla was remarried with Shri Kanhaiya Lal prior to 24.02.1974. Since that time, the land is in possession of the plaintiff and they are cultivating the land. It was further contended that the name of Gopal was not added in the Jamabandi and the name of Smt. Kamla was not deleted intentionally by the Revenue Officer. Smt. Kamla sold the land to defendant No.2 through a registered sale-deed dated 15.09.2008. The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the sale- deed and also sought relief for injunction. Reply to the said suit as well as the temporary injunction application was filed by defendant Nos. 1 & 2. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 came with this case that no partition was made between Gopal and Madho and Smt. Kamla did not re-marry. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments dismissed the application vide order dated 25.02.2010. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to notice that according to respondent No.1, Smt. Kamla, and according to certificate submitted by her, ever since the death of her husband, Shri Madho, she has been residing with her parents. Moreover, the learned Judge has incorrectly relied upon the entries in the revenue record to conclude that the possession is with Smt. Kamla. Hence, his conclusion that the prima faice case is not made out in favour of the appellant is misplaced. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. According to the learned Judge it was the case of the appellants that after the death of Madho, Smt. Kamla had married Kanhaiya Lal through “Nata” Custom. Therefore, her case in the property of Madho had come to an end. In order to buttress this plea, they had submitted certain affidavits. However, the learned Judge has noted that the factum of “Nata” has not been proved by the plaintiff-appellants. Moreover, the revenue record clearly show that the land is still in the name of Smt. Kamla and her possession thereof is proven. Merely because, Smt. Kamla is staying with her parents, after the death of her husband would not lead the Court to presume that she is 4 no longer in possession of the land. After completely discussing the evidence which was available on record, the learned Judge has legally and validly passed the impugned order. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. Thus, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-