Back
2018 Supreme(J&K) 671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.
Bansi Lal & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
Vijay Chand Katoch & Anr. - Respondents
OWP (104) No. 108 of 2017, IA No. 1 of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.N. Bhat
For the Respondents: Mr. Subodh Singh Jamwal
The legal principle established is that a party who has obtained a decree for specific performance may not have the right to question the receipt of rental compensation by other parties in a pending civil suit related to the same property.
Headnote:
Supervisory Jurisdiction - Land Dispute - Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, Section 104 - 23.2.2015, 10.3.2017 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to specific performance, decree for specific performance, and the rights of the parties in a land dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents, claiming ownership of certain land. The court had previously passed a decree for specific performance in favor of the petitioners. The dispute arose regarding the payment of rental compensation by the department of Agriculture to the owners of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not have the right to question the receipt of rental compensation by the respondents or other defendants in the pending civil suit. The court dismissed the petition and connected IA, stating that the impugned order suffered from no illegality or perversity.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rights of the parties in a land dispute, specifically related to the payment of rental compensation and the decree for specific performance obtained by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, having obtained a decree for specific performance, did not have the right to question the receipt of rental compensation by the respondents or other defendants in the pending civil suit.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be without merit and was accordingly dismissed along with connected IA.
1. The present petition is one filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, against the orders dated 29.10.2016 and 10.3.2017.
2. By virtue of order dated 29.10.2016, the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu dismissed the application, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for disobedience of order dated 23.2.2015.
3. By virtue of order dated 10.3.2017, which is also impugned in the present petition, the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu also rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking a restraint order against the plaintiffs from withdrawing the rental compensation being paid by the department of agriculture to the plaintiffs. The reason for dismissing the application was that the court had already passed the order dated 29.10.2016 on the issue which the department was under an obligation to comply.
4. Briefly stated the material facts as under:
5. A suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioners against the respondents in the court of Principal Distinct Judge, Jammu wherein it was asserted that defendants were the absolute owners and in possession of land measuring 665 kanals falling under Survey No. 63 and 275 kanals falling under Survey No. 99 situated at Beli Azmat, Tehsil and District Jammu.
6. It was asserted that the defendants in the suit had agreed to alienate the land of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein and therefore, in consequence of that agreement, plaintiff No. 1 purchased 170 kanals of land in consideration of Rs. 2.50 lacs, plaintiff No. 2 purchased 200 kanals in consideration of Rs. 3,30,500/-, plaintiff No. 3 purchased 200 kanals in consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/-, plaintiff No. 4 purchased 170 kanals in consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- and plaintiff No. 5 purchased 200 kanals in consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/-.
7. It was urged that the land was purchased by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 6.10.2010 executed by the defendants through their attorney holder Sat Pal s/o Beli Ram R/o Gangochak in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also urged that despite the agreement to sell, the defendants did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed, hence a suit for specific performance was filed.
8. The Principal District Judge, Jammu vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2010 passed a decree for specific performance in regard to agreement to sell dated 6.10.2010 in faovur of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein. The said decree came to be challenged in a suit for declaration by one of the owners, namely, Vijay Chand Katoch, respondent No. 1 herein in the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu, which, by way of an interim order dated 1.5.2012, stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2010. Subsequently, the order dated 1.5.2012 was made absolute by virtue of order dated 8.12.2013. The said order was to remain in operation till the disposal of the main suit.
9. It appears that since the land in question was under the tenancy of the department of Agriculture, some rent used to accrue to the owners in that account. The petitioners herein, proceeded on the premise, that since the suit had only been filed by one of the owners, namely, Vijay Chand Katoch (respondent No. 1 herein), therefore the rent, which was otherwise payable by the department of Agriculture to the other owners, be not paid and the same be protected till the final outcome of the proceedings as they had obtained a decree for specific performance in that regard.
10. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent No. 1. The court finally by virtue of order dated 23.2.2015 dismissed the same as being without merit for two reasons, firstly that the decree obtained by the petitioners herein was collusive and secondly, that there was no valid document regarding transfer of title over the suit property executed in favour of the petitioners.
11. It was also held t
