TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED BELOW EXH. NO. 05 ...

1 RCS No. 100/2008Rahibai V/s Madhav.Exh. No. 05TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED BELOW EXH. NO. 051) The instant application has been filed by the plaintiff for grant oftemporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or mutatingthe suit property in the name of family members till final disposal of the suitfor declaration and possession.2) It was submitted by learned advocate on behalf of the plaintiff thatsuit property ie land Gut No.218, Gut No. 50 and house No. 117 was theproperty originally owned by father of the plaintiff and defendants. That fatherof plaintiff and defendants was the owner of land thus all the suit propertywere joint family property of plaintiff and defendants. That the said Limbajidied instestate leaving behind plaintiff and his legal heirs, therefore, all the suitproperty are ancestral property and present plaintiff and defendants were jointowner of the same but the defendant No.1 is in cultivating possession of thesuit property and used to give 1/4 th of the crop share to the plaintiff till the year2006. That plaintiff contended that defendants are trying to alienate the suitproperty and therefore, they be restrained.3) Defendant No.1 failed to file his written statement but argued onthe law points at Exh. 5.4) Defendant No. 2 and 3 failed to appear in the suit, therefore, suitproceeded exparte against them.5) After going through rival contention raised by plaintiff, and hearingarguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff, I had recorded myfindings against the points framed for determining the present application

which are discussed along with reasoning as follows.2Points for determination FINDINGS1) Whether plaintiff proves that prima faciecase is in her favour ?2) Whether plaintiff proves that the balanceof convenience lies in her favour?3) Whether plaintiff proves that she willsuffer irreparable loss if the application isnot granted?...No...No...No4) What order? As per final order.R E A S O N S6) As to points No. 1 to 3 :­ Plaintiff contended that suit property isancestral property and defendants are trying to alienate the same withoutconsent of the plaintiff therefore, plaintiff is suffering irreparable loss asmeans of livelihood of the plaintiff is income earned from the share of cropgiven by the defendant No.1 to plaintiff towards her share. Plaintiff had filedcopy of Gaonamuna No. 8 and 7/12 extract. After perusing both thedocuments, it appears that name of defendant No.1 is mutated in the revenuerecord as a owner thereof. Whereas no any document has been filed by theplaintiff prima facie to show that the suit property is the ancestral property,therefore, at this stage it cannot be ascertain that suit property is ancestralproperty and plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if application is not grantedand therefore, no prima facie case and balance of convenience appears infavour of the plaintiff, I therefore, answer points No.1 to 3 in the negative.7) As to point No. 4 :­ In view of findings given to the points No.1 to

3 I proceed to pass the following order.3 RCS No. 100/2008Rahibai V/s Madhav.Exh. No. 05ORDER1) Application at Exh. 5 is rejected.2) Cost in cause.Dated:­ 19/09/2008. ( Mrs. R. K. Kshirsagar) ,Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,Parbhani.