^^^i^^^S^..; ^f^te^tX^^'^X^^^'^"^**^'1-'^' ^^*^^^^^^^^'1-''^^----^"^^;^'-^^^ " ^:?:^ IN THEHON'BLEMl^COUIWOFCHHAT^iiARHA^ ?';"»-?l'.?'i;'s''^-?'M-l:':^tBt^^ M. A. No. 60 of 2011 APPELLANT/ Defendant ^\\ ^' \ RESPON&ENTS/ Plaintiff ;1. 2. Smt. Punna devi Jaiswal, W/o Sakhi Gopal, aged about 42 yars, Caste-Kalar, Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village-Bhatha, < TahSil-Malkharoda, District- Janjgir-Champa(C.6.) Daulat Ram, S/o Antram Dansena, aged about 76 years, Caste-Kalar, Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o Villflge-Ulda, Post-Sarwani, Tahsil- Kharsia, District-Raigarh (C.6.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 fr) OF C0 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 _^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. N0.600F201T APPELLANT Defendant RESPONDENTS Smt. Punna Devi Jaiswal Versus Daulat Ram & another Plaintiff MISC. APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 frt OF CPC (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for appellant. Smt. Hamida Siddique, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri SRJ Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 14.11.2011) The instant appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1(r) of CPC is directed against the order dated 15.02.2011, passed by the District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2011, whereby and whereunder the appetlanVdefendant has been restrained from interfering in the possession of suit property till decision of the suit. Brief facts of the case are, plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a suit; for declaration that the registered sale deed dated i.07.2010 alteged to be executed by him in favour of appellant be declared as null and void, and for injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. ^ ^ Case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in substance is that, he is owner and in possession of suit land bearing Khasra No. 23, admeasuring 2.800 Hect. of land situated in Village Ulda, Teh. Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh. As per plaintiff, bn 20.11.2010, he came to know that hysband of appellant got executed a sale deed in her favour fraudulently. Immediately after knowing the above fact he obtained certified copy 8f alleged sale deed and filed a suit. As per plaintiff, he neither sold the land nor r»;eived any consideration nor had handed over its possession to the appetlant. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in his possession over the suit property till decision of the suit. AppellanVdefendant in reply to the above application has denied the allegations leveled by the respondent/plaintiff and has stated after receipt of Rs. 10 Lakhs, the respondent/plaintiff has executed the sale deed and has also delivered possession of suit land to the appellant and in-fact appeltant is in possession of suit property pursuant to thesale deed executed by respondent. The triat court, after considering the case of the parties, allowed respondent's application- for grant of temporary injunction and restrained the appellant from interfering in respondents' possession over the suit property. Ms. ShSrmila Singhai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit : the r^pondent has not denied his %"^ ~-^^;^^..^~ @ •••^te.E ^' signature over the sate deed; as per recital of sale deed, possesston of suit land was handed over to the appellant, and therefore, the court below went wrong by granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent. 7. On the other hand, Smt. Hamida Siddique, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 would submit: the trial court after going through entire material placed by both the parties in its proper perspective has passed the order which deserves to be upheld. 8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and material availabte on record. 9. Undisputedly, as per sale deed, atleged sale conskleration amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs was paid by the appellant directly to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff and not before the Sub-Registrar whereas, the affidavits of Ram Khilawan Jaisvral and Tulsi Ram Jaiswal, filed by the appellant in support of her reply to the application for grant of temporary injunction shows above amount has been paid in front of Sub-Registrar. 10. Had there been any payment of consideration amount befOTe the Sub-Registrar, the Sub-Registrar should have endorsed it in the sale deed. Admittedly, there is no such endorsement in the sale deed. Further, the trial court having found prima-facie case In favour of respondent/plaintiff has passed the order impugned. Undoubtedly, there is a prima-facie case and balance of convenience in fawur of responderft/plaintiff. IT the respondent's <?. Sahu possession is disturbed by the appellant then certainty the respondent shatl suffer irreparable loss. 11. Looking to every aspects of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any illegality In passing the order impugned warranting interference of this court. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sa7- N.K.Agarwaj Judge .*" r