[2025:RJ-JP:17683] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 333/2024 Ratiram S/o Sh. Jhgadiya, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Sodabass, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khairthal-Tijara, Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. Leelaram S/o Sh. Jhgadiya, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Sodabass, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khairthal-Tijara. Raj. 2. Shrimaan Sub-Registrar Mahoday, Mundawar, District Khairthal-Tijara. Raj. 3. Dataram S/o Sh. Jhgadiya, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Sodabass, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khairthal-Tijara, Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 25/04/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant to challenge the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.) in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1/2022, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the defendant was restrained from alienating in land in question and were also ordered to maintain status quo as regards the possession and record of the land. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and the plaintiff-respondents are five brothers and they are having equal share in the land in question, i.e., 1/5 share of each. He further submits that one of the brothers named Dataram relinquished his [2025:RJ-JP:17683] (2 of 2) [CMA-333/2024] share in favour of the appellant by relinquished deed dated 10.12.2021 and now the respondent-plaintiff has challenged the said relinquished deed by filing a suit for cancellation of the same deed and so also the permanent injunction. He further submits that learned trial Court on application for temporary injunction has passed an order restraining the appellant for alienating the land of the total shared land, whereas the grievance of the plaintiff- respondent is only to the extent of 1/5 share of Dataram. He also submits that at the most, the Tribunal Court has passed an interim order to the extent of 1/5 share of qua Dataram. 3. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that Dataram was not competent to relinquish his share as he was of insane mind. 4. Heard and considered the facts on record and the submissions made by counsel for both the parties. 5. It is borne out that dispute between the parties is with regard to the 1/5 share of Dataram, however, the Court below has passed an interim order in regard to the total share of land in question which in view of this Court is not justified as the land other than the share of Dataram is not a subject matter of dispute. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of as under. 7. The interim order dated 14.12.2023 shall remain effective only to the extent of 1/5 share of Dataram which has been relinquished in favour of the appellant. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J LAKSHYA SHARMA /94