Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and sought temporary injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating the suit property, dispossessing the plaintiff and making any construction over the suit property etc. during the pendency of the suit.- she being one of the daughters of Late Nandan Bhargava is entitled to claim her 1/6th share in the suit property and is also entitled to be placed in possession of her exclusive share by effecting partition amongst all the co-sharer by meets and bounds because Late Nandan Bhargava (her father) died intestate. The plaintiff has also questioned the legality of the sale made by the other co-sharers (legal representatives) in favour of the appellant.=The Trial Court vide order dated 10.04.2015 rejected the applications =The High Court by impugned order allowed the appeals and directed the parties to maintain status quo till final disposal of the suit.- While issuing notice in these appeals to the respondents, this Court on 08.06.2015 passed the following order: “Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Issue notice. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent no.1. As an interim measure, the effect and operation of the common impugned order dated 29.05.2015, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, shall remain stayed during the pendency of these petitions subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not transfer or create any third party rights in respect of thirty flats proposed to be constructed on the property in question. Further, the concerned trial court is directed to decide the suit pending between the parties as expeditiously as possible.” It is true that finding recorded while considering grant of injunction is always considered prima facie in nature and is confined to the disposal of such interlocutory proceedings. They do not influence the decision which is eventually rendered in the suit on merits as the same is rendered on the basis of evidence which is adduced in the suit. However, we feel that having regard to the issues involved in the suit and the nature of directions which we propose to pass, it is proper in this case not to record any categorical finding either way. It is, however, made clear that the interim order dated 08.06.2015 would also be subject to the result of the civil suits and depending upon the outcome of the civil suits, the Trial Court will be at liberty to pass appropriate order of its modification, setting aside or revocation as the case may be.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.              OF 2017

(arising out of S.L.P.(c) Nos. 16610-11 of 2015)

M/s Akriti Land Con Pvt. Ltd.          ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Krishna Bhargava & Ors.etc.etc.    .…Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1)    Leave granted.

2)    These appeals are filed by defendant  No.6  against  the  order  dated

29.05.2015 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,  Jaipur  Bench  at

Jaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 1640 and 1641 of  2015  whereby  the  High

Court set aside and  quashed  the  order  dated  10.04.2015  passed  by  the

Additional District Judge No.4, Kota  in  Temporary  Injunction  Application

bearing Civil Misc. Case No.112 of 2014 in Civil  Suit  No.89  of  2014  and

Temporary Injunction Application bearing Civil Misc. Case No.37 of  2014  in

Civil Suit No. 21 of 2014 whereby the injunction applications filed  by  the

plaintiff/applicant (respondent No.1) were dismissed.

3)    In order to appreciate the issue  involved  in  these  appeals,  which

lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state few relevant facts  taken

from the appeal paper books.

4)    The appellant is defendant No. 6  whereas  respondent  No.  1  is  the

plaintiff and the remaining respondents are  the  defendants  in  the  civil

suits out of which these appeals arise.

5)    The dispute, which is the  subject  matter  of  the  civil  suits,  is

between the family members of one Bhargava family, who are sisters,  brother

and the mother – being the legal representatives of  Late  Nandan  Bhargava.

The appellant is the purchaser of the suit land from  some  members  of  the

family.

6)    The dispute relates to agricultural land  of  18  Bigha  11  Biswa  in

total bearing Khasra Nos. 68, 46, 51, 54, 53, 48, 50, 49  and  52  (now  re-

numbered as Khasra Nos. 92  to  111)  situated  at  Village  Khedli  Purohit

(Kota) Rajasthan and some houses situated at Jaipur/Kota as detailed in  the

plaints (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”).  So far  as  these

appeals are concerned, they relate to suit property only.

7)     Late Nandan Bhargava was the original owner of the suit property.  He

died on 28.10.1980 leaving behind his wife, four daughters and one  son.  On

his death, some legal representatives of Late Nandan Bhargava sold the  suit

land to the appellant. This gave rise  to  the  dispute  between  the  legal

representatives regarding the  extent  of  the  share  held  by  each  legal

representative, their exclusive possession over  their  share  in  the  suit

property, their rights to deal and sell the suit property etc.

8)    Respondent No. 1,  therefore,  filed  two  civil  suit  being  C.S  No

21/2014 and C.S. No. 89 of 2014 in the Court of  Additional  District  Judge

No. 4, Kota against respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and  the  appellant  herein.  The

suits are filed seeking therein the reliefs of  declaration  of  title  over

the suit property, partition,  cancellation  of  sale  deeds  and  permanent

injunction in relation to the suit property etc.  In substance, the case  of

respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) is that she being one of the daughters of  Late

Nandan Bhargava is entitled to claim her 1/6th share in  the  suit  property

and is also entitled to be placed in possession of her  exclusive  share  by

effecting partition amongst all the co-sharer by meets  and  bounds  because

Late Nandan Bhargava (her father) died intestate.  The  plaintiff  has  also

questioned the legality of the sale made  by  the  other  co-sharers  (legal

representatives) in favour of the appellant.

9)    The defendants have denied the plaintiff’s  claim  and  justified  the

sale made by them. So far as the appellant is concerned, they  alleged  that

they being the bona fide purchaser  of  the  suit  land  for  value  without

notice of any prior claim of any one, their title to the  land  acquired  by

sale deed is unimpeachable and thus legal. Apart from  their  defenses,  the

respective defendants have also taken several other pleas on points  of  law

and facts in their written statements while opposing the suit  which  we  do

not consider it necessary to mention in detail here.

10)   The plaintiff also moved two applications under Order 39 Rules  1  and

2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure  Code  and  sought  temporary

injunction  against  the  defendants   restraining   the   defendants   from

transferring or alienating the suit property,  dispossessing  the  plaintiff

and making any construction over the suit property etc. during the  pendency

of the suit.

11)   The defendants opposed the applications on several grounds. The  Trial

Court vide order dated 10.04.2015 rejected the applications which gave  rise

to filing of the two Misc. Appeals by the plaintiff before the High Court.

12)   The High Court by impugned order allowed the appeals and directed  the

parties to maintain status quo till final disposal of the  suit.  A  further

direction was given to the Trial Court to ensure final disposal of the  suit

within 9 months. Felt aggrieved, defendant No.6 is  in  appeals  by  special

leave before this Court.

13)   While issuing notice in these appeals to the respondents,  this  Court

on 08.06.2015 passed the following order:

“Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing  for  the

petitioner and Mr. Parag Tripathi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for

respondent No.1.  Issue notice. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, learned  counsel  accepts

notice for respondent no.1. As an interim measure, the effect and  operation

of the common impugned order dated 29.05.2015, passed by the High  Court  of

Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, shall  remain  stayed  during  the  pendency  of

these petitions subject to the  condition  that  the  petitioner  shall  not

transfer or create any  third  party  rights  in  respect  of  thirty  flats

proposed to be  constructed  on  the  property  in  question.  Further,  the

concerned trial court is directed to decide the  suit  pending  between  the

parties as expeditiously as possible.”

14)   We have heard the learned senior counsel for  the  parties  at  length

and also perused the record of  the  case.  Having  heard,  we  are  of  the

considered view that it would  be  just,  proper  and  in  the  interest  of

justice that the civil suits out of which these  appeals  arise  itself  are

disposed of on merits in accordance  with  law  expeditiously  as  has  been

directed by the High Court in the impugned order. The reason is that if  any

observations are made by this  Court  while  deciding  the  appeals  on  its

merits, they would cause prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the  parties  while

prosecuting the civil suit on merit.

15)    It  is  true  that  finding  recorded  while  considering  grant   of

injunction is always considered prima facie in nature  and  is  confined  to

the disposal of such interlocutory proceedings.  They do not  influence  the

decision which is eventually rendered in the suit on merits as the  same  is

rendered on the basis of evidence which is adduced in  the  suit.   However,

we feel that having regard to the  issues  involved  in  the  suit  and  the

nature of directions which we propose to pass, it is  proper  in  this  case

not to record any categorical finding either way.

16)   We, therefore, refrain from recording any categorical finding  on  any

of the contentious issues arising in the  case  and  which  were  vehemently

pressed in service before this Court by the learned counsel  in  support  of

their case and accordingly direct the Trial Court to expedite the  trial  of

the civil suits out of which these appeals arise preferably within one  year

as an outer limit on merits in accordance with law.

17)   Needless to say,  the  Trial  Court  would  not,  in  any  manner,  be

influenced by any observation made by the High Court in the  impugned  order

and by this Court and would decide the civil suits  on  merits  strictly  in

accordance with law on the basis of pleadings and the evidence that  may  be

adduced by the parties in support of their respective case in the suits.

18)   As mentioned above, while issuing  notice  of  these  appeals  to  the

respondents, this Court has  passed  an  interim  order  on  08.06.2015.  We

accordingly direct that the order dated 08.06.2015 would continue to  remain

in operation till the suits are finally decided as directed above.

19)   It is, however, made clear that the  interim  order  dated  08.06.2015

would also be subject to the result of the civil suits  and  depending  upon

the outcome of the civil suits, the Trial Court will be at liberty  to  pass

appropriate order of its modification, setting aside or  revocation  as  the

case may be.

20)   With the aforesaid directions, the appeals are disposed of.

…………………………………..J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]

………………………………….J.

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi;

April 13, 2017

———————–

10