Honble MADAN, J. – Revision-petition No. 605/92 has been preferred to this court against the order, dated 3.3.1992 passed by Addl. Civil Judge- cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 405/82 whereby the application filed under O. 14, R. 5 C.P.C., by the non-petitioner-Samiti has been allowed.

(2). Revision-petition No. 884/92 has been preferred to this Court against the order, dated 14.9.1992 passed by Addl. Civil Judge- cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil suit No. 405/82 whereby the application filed by the non- petitioner-Samiti under O. 12, R. 6 C.P.C. has been allowed.

(3). Since both the revision-petitions are arising out of the same suit and the parties are the same and the subject matter and dispute pertains to the same property. I deem it proper to decide the same by this common Order.

(4). Briefly stated the facts are that the non-petitioner-Samiti (plaintiff) filed a suit before the trial court for claiming the relief of permanent injunction where the plaintiff had sought the relief inter-alia that it should not be disturbed in its develo- pment by the defendant-petitioner and also be restrained from creating any hindrance in use and occupation of the land in question which had been sold to the plaintiff-samiti by the defendant-petitioner for consideration of Rs. 8,27,500/- vide agreements of sale dated 1.5.1975 and 21.10.1981 respectively which was purchased by the samiti for development of residential colony for its members. In para 6 of the plaint it has been specifically pleaded that on 1.5.1975 the defendant-petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of pumping set which was installed on the land measuring 27 bighas 5 biswas situated in village Getore, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur bearing Khasra Nos. 63, 65 to 36, 171, 172 and 176 to 188. The said agreements are duly signed by the parties.

(5). It was contended by the plaintiff in the plaint that it had purchased the aforesaid agricultural land of the defendant, details of which are mentioned in para 2 of the plaint and that the Samiti is a registered Samiti under Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Registration Act, 1956 having its head office at Jaipur. In para 2 of the plaint it was contended by the plaintiff that the land in question was agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff-society for a sum of Rs. 8,27,500/- vide agreement dated 1.5.1975 for the development of residential colony for its members. It has been further pleaded in para 6 of the plaint that on 1.5.1975 the defendant-petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash and on 6.3.1981 had received a sum Rs. 8,17,500/- by way of account payee cheques on different dates w.e.f. 1.5.1975 to 24.9.1981 and had thus received a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,27,500/- in lieu of sale of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per bigha. It has been further contended in the plaint that after the receipt of full consideration of the sale amount the defendant-petitioner handed over physical possession of the land in question to the Samiti.

(6). It has been further contended by the plaintiff that it is only subsequent to the sale in favour of the Samiti that the defendant-petitioner started creating obstructions and causing hindrance in use the occupation of the land in question by the members of the Samiti and hence the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.

(7). In the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner it was contended inter-alia by way of specific denial that neither he had received the sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash nor executed the agreements of sale dated 1.5.75 as well as 2.10.81. The petitioner had further denied the averments regarding handing over physical possession of the land in question to the Samiti and has specifically con- tended that the land in question was an ancestral property in which the defendant-petitioner was a mere share holder and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document