Honble YADAV, J.–This is an appeal filed against the order dated 20.3.1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar making temporary injunction absolute in a suit for specific performance of contract restraining defendant-appellant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the agricultural land on the basis of an un-registered agreement for sale dated 31.12.92 although a revenue suit for eviction under Sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was pending against him in respect of disputed land.

(2). It is revealed from perusal of the record that the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract on 20.10.94 in respect of disputed land situated in Murabba No. 233/364 measuring 12 Bighas 5 biswas in Chak 5 TDD Tehsil Vijay Nagar on the basis of unregistered agreement dated 31.12.92. It is averred in the plaint that 24 Bighas 10 Biswas of command land was allotted on permanent basis under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Nehar Project) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as `Rules of 1975). It is further averred that the plaintiff- respondent and defendant-appellants husband deceased Kishanlal were co-sharers of the disputed land to the extent of half share each.

(3). The defendant-appellant was in need of money to construct a house at Loonkaransar and also to purchase land, so she entered into an agreement for sale of this land on 31.12.92 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 2,15,000/- was paid on 31.12.92 and an un-registered agreement was executed by her. It is also averred that as the possession of the land in dispute was already with the plaintiff-respondent, hence, recital was made in the unregistered agreement about delivery of possession to him as a purchaser in pursuant to the aforesaid un- registered agreement dated 31.12.92. It is alleged that on 25.1.93, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was further paid to the defendant- appellant. As the defendant-appellant refused to execute sale-deed on 16.10.94 in pursuant to aforesaid unregistered agreement which necessitated to file the present suit for specific performance along with an application for temporary injunction under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, CPC.

(4). The defendant-appellant filed a reply opposing the aforesaid application moved under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2 CPC on the ground, inter alia, that she had never executed so-called unregistered agreement dated 31.12.92 nor any consideration thereto had been paid to her as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent. It was averred that after death of her husband deceased Kishan Lal, her son and daughter were minors and she was not able to cultivate the land in dispute, hence, it was given on `Theka to the plaintiff-respondent who is her husbands real brother. it was further averred that when plaintiff-respondent failed to pay `Theka money and her son and daughter became capable to manage the agricultural operations over the disputed land, she revoked `Theka and demanded possession from the plaintiff- respondent. On his refusal to hand-over possession of the land in question to her, she filed a revenue suit for his eviction in the court of Assistant Collector, Anoopgarh on 26.7.93, in which, the plaintiff-respondent filed his written statement. In his written statement filed in the revenue suit for eviction before the Revenue Court, the plaintiff-respondent did not allege that she had executed an unregistered agree- ment for sale in his favour on 31.12.92. He did not allege in his written statement in Revenue Suit about delivery of possession in pursuant to the so-called unregistered agreement dated 31.12.92 nor about the payment of any consideration to her in lieu of said unregistered agreement. On the contrary, it was averred in the revenue suit for eviction before the Revenue Court that son and daughter of deceased Kishan Lal are also necessary party in the suit for eviction as they are heirs and legal rep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document