Page 1

   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

1

Page 2

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

2

Page 3

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,

3

Page 4

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.

4

Page 5

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

5

Page 6

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

6

Page 7

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.

7

Page 8

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

8

Page 9

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

9

Page 10

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  

1