Back
1996 Supreme(Del) 84
High Court Of Delhi
FIDELITY GROWTH FUND PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
S.PARTAP SINGH - Respondent
Decided On : 01/18/1996
A trespasser simpliciter may not be entitled to the grant of an injunction against the true owner of the property, but possession of immovable property can be a ground for maintenance of status quo under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - SECTION 11 - SANAD - SALE DEED - POSSESSION - INJUNCTION - TRESPASSER - ORDER 39 RULE 1(C) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - POSSESSION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - GROUND FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO - TRUE OWNER - TRESPASSER SIMPLICITER - GRANT OF INJUNCTION - SETTLED POSSESSION - RIGHT TO POSSESS - INTERFERENCE WITH POSSESSION - PROTECTION OF POSSESSION TILL DECISION OF SUIT - MERITS OF THE CASE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession of the land in Khasra No. 675, Village Satbari, New Delhi. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in settled possession of the land and had a right to possess the same. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that he was the true owner of the land and that the plaintiffs were trespassers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the land in question and that they had a prima facie right to occupy the same. The court also found that the defendant had not been able to prove his title or possession in the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the land in question? 2. Whether the plaintiffs had a right to occupy the land in question? 3. Whether the defendant was entitled to obtain possession of the property on the basis of the sanad of 1986?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession of the land in question. The court relied on the following principles: (a) A trespasser simpliciter may not be entitled to the grant of an injunction against the true owner of the property. (b) Possession of immovable property can be a ground for maintenance of status quo under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. (c) Where the defendant threatens the plaintiff or otherwise causes injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may grant a temporary injunction for the purpose of preventing dispossession of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ad interim injunction and restrained the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the land in question till the disposal of the suit.
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for the grant of ad interim injunction.
( 2 ) THE facts, in short, are that one Shri Rizak Ram was in cultivating possession of the land measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas in Khasra No. 675 in Village Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli. This land was declared evacuee property under Section II of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. By Sanad No. MOR/satbari/d/1407 dated 20th November, 1978, the land was allotted to one Shri Pratap Singh. The said Shri Pratap Singh, after obtaining a no objection certificate on 6th March, 1979 from the Competent Authority, sold this land to Shri Rizak Ram who was already in cultivating possession thereof. The sale deed transferring the land in the name of Shri Rizak Ram was duly registered as document No. 1070 in additional book No. I, volume No. 5081 on 17th March, 1979. Defendant No. 3, Ansal Housing and Estate Private Limited, started a project of developing farms in Satbari area and for that purpose they started acquiring lands in the area in the years 1979 and 1980. By an agreement to sell dated 10th January, 1980, Shri Rizak Ram agreed to sell this land in favour of defendant No. 3 or its nominees and possession was also delivered to the said defendant. Defendant No. 3 developed the land as a farm land along with land in another Khasra bearing No. 676 and gave the same farm number as A-11a in their Satbari Scheme. Ansals had about 100 such farms in the said scheme. Out of the total area of 4 bighas 16 biswas in Khasra No. 675, an area of 3 bighas 07 biswas was under farm A-IIA, the balance measuring I bigha 9 biswas was converted into roads, and sale deed has been registered in the name of plaintiffs 2 and 3 on 12. 12. 1980 after obtaining no objection certificate from Tehsildar, Mehrauli. Defendant No 3, namely the Ansals were confirming parties to this deed. The remaining area measuring I bigha 9 biswas was sold by Shri Rizak Ram to Satbari Farms Owners Association by means of a separate sale deed dated 27. 11. 1980 and registered on 19. 12. 1980 after obtaining no objection certificate from Tehsildar, Mehrauli. Farm No. A-IIA had a total area of 8 bighas 3 biswas. It comprised of 3 bighas 7 biswas of the land belonging to Shri Rizak Ram in Khasra No. 675 and the balance area of 4 bighas 16 biswas in Khasra No. 676 was owned by one Shri Hukam Chand. The said Shri Hukam Chand had also sold this land to plaintiffs 2 and 3 by means of a sale deed dated 24,11. 1980 registered on 12. 12. 1980 after obtaining no objection certificate from Tehsildar, Mehrauli. After getting the plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Ansals constructed a villa in farm No. A-IIA for plaintiffs 2 and 3. This super structure is stated to have been completed in the year 1984. By agreegreement to sell dealed 6th December, 1990, plaintiffs 2 and 3 agreed to sell this farm-house to the first plaintiff. It appears that defendant No. I was not happy with the construction of a farm-house on the land which he is alleged to have sold to Shri Rizak Ram, who, in turn, had sold the same to plaintiffs 2 and: 3 and on or about 18. 10. 1991, he filed a suit before the Sub-Judge against one Vipin Malik for an injunction. Initialty, a stay was granted, however, the same was vacated on 23. 1. 1991. Shri Vipin Malik, it is alleged, has nothing to do with land in Khasra No. 675 as he was the owner of land in Khasra No. 676. It is alleged that plaintiff, after inspection of the allotment file of Sardar Pratap Singh in the office of the Managing Officer (Rural), same to know that the original file, by which the land was allotted in 1978, was missing and another file was sought to be reconstructed in 1986 and by a letter dated 10. 4. 1990, Pratap Singh had requested for delivery of possession of this land in Khasra No. 675 to him, whereas in the suit filed in the Court of the Sub-Judge he
