The court reinforced that subsequent purchasers cannot gain better rights than those under dispute and emphasized the importance of proper property identification for valid transfer.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 18400/2022 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 18402/2022 (Permission to file lengthy synopsis)

3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

4. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 18403/2022 (Delay of 16 days in filing appeal)

5. By this application, the appellants seek condonation of 16 days' delay in filing the appeal.

6. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

7. Application is disposed of.

FAO(OS) 26/2022 & CM APPL. 18401/2022 (Stay)

8. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the order dated 14th September, 2021 of the learned Single Judge dismissing their application for interim injunction to stay the construction over the suit property and for restraining the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 from further selling the property and order dated 13th December, 2021 dismissing the review petition.

9. The appellants (who are the plaintiffs in the original suit) had filed a suit for Declaration, Possession and Injunction challenging the Sale Deed dated 04th November, 1999 executed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (who are defendants in the original suit) on the ground of it being a forged document. It was claimed that the Sale Deed pertains to 360 square yards of land forming part of Khasra No. 138 situated in revenue district of Village Okhla, Abadi, Jamia Nagar (hereinafter referred to as suit property). The total area of the Khasra is more than 10,000 square yards but the exact location of 360 square yards of land sold to the respondent Nos.1and 2 is not identified. There is no schedule, site plan or description of the location of alleged 360 square yards in Khasra No. 138 square yards, which is a pre-requisite for any Sale Deed to be registered, as provided under Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908. Since situs of the property remained unidentified, any sanction of the plan for construction on the suit property, cannot be lawful.

10. The appellants became aware of the subsequent Sale Deed dated 26th March, 2021 executed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (subsequent purchasers) only at the time of withdrawal of suit bearing CS No. DJ 6195 of 2016 for Permanent Injunction, on 7th June, 2021. The appellants were thus forced to first implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants No. 3 to 5 in the present suit and then to seek injunction against them.

11. It was further claimed that respondent Nos. 3 to 5, being the subsequent purchasers, cannot acquire any better right, title or interest in the suit property than the respondent Nos.1&2. However, they are illegally constructing and trespassing over the suit property. Hence, the appellants sought to restrain the respondent Nos.3 to 5 from raising any construction or creating third party rights by way of interim injunction application.

12. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 strongly opposed the application for interim injunction on the ground that a similar relief was sought by the plaintiff by way of I.A. No. 2371/2016, which was declined by the Court vide decision dated 14th July, 2016.

13. It was asserted that the 360 square yards of land was identified by late Mohammad Amin, the vendor in the original Sale Deed and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the said demarcated portion since 1999. After obtaining requisite permission from the statutory authorities, the Sale Deed has been executed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 conferring a valid title on them. The respondents hav