Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2714
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Balraj
Versus
Harinder
Civil Revision No. 4829 of 2009,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the party in possession of the disputed land is entitled to protect its possession during the pendency of the trial, and the cancellation of mutation by the relevant authority can influence the court's decision.
Headnote:
CPC - Civil Procedure - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - 1908 - [Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] - The court discussed the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the relevant facts for disposal of the present revision petition. The court analyzed the ownership and possession of the disputed land, the mutation of sale and lease deeds, and the cancellation of mutation No.995 by the Collector, Faridabad. The court found that the plaintiffs had established their possession over the disputed land and were entitled to injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering in their peaceful possession over the disputed land. The defendants had executed sale and lease deeds, and there were disputes regarding the ownership and possession of the land. The trial court dismissed the application for injunction, but the appellate court granted the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had established their possession over the disputed land and were entitled to injunction. The court also noted that the cancellation of mutation No.995 by the Collector, Faridabad, and the settlement between the parties at the Police Post Jaisans supported the plaintiffs' claim of ownership and possession.
Issues: The main issues were the ownership and possession of the disputed land, the validity of the sale and lease deeds, and the effect of the cancellation of mutation No.995 by the Collector, Faridabad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had established their possession over the disputed land and were entitled to injunction. The court also emphasized the significance of the cancellation of mutation No.995 and the settlement between the parties at the Police Post Jaisans in supporting the plaintiffs' claim.
Final Decision: The revision petition filed by the defendant was dismissed, and the order of the appellate court granting injunction in favor of the plaintiffs was upheld.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. This revision has arisen from an order passed by,learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad dated 25.07.2009 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against order of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad dated 26.03.2007 by which plaintiffs application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for disposal of the present revision petition are that the plaintiffs, namely Harinder, Dharmender, both sons of Govind Ram and Dayawati widow of Govind Ram, filed the present Suit No.402 on 20.11.2006 against Jai Pal, Chander alias Bhagat Ji, Rakam Singh, all sons of Dal Chand, Kartar, Balraj, both sons of Jai Pal and Gian Chand son of Ram Deva, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land falling in Khewat No.183, Khatauni No.288, Rect. No.9, Killa No.1/2(3-15), 2(8-0), 9/1(2-3), total measuring 13 Kanals 18 Marias, situated within the revenue estate of village Sidhola, Tehsil and District Faridabad [for short "property in dispute"] on the ground that they are owners in possession of the said land by virtue of sale deed dated 27.05.2005. ft was alleged that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Harinder and Dharmender both sons of Govind Ram, had purchased the property in dispute on 27.05.2005 vide sale deed bearing Vasika No.2875 from Gian Chand (defendant No.6) and Dayawati widow of Govind Ram had purchased leasehold rights from Gian Chand vide lease deed dated 27.05.2005 bearing Vasika No.2874. The names of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who had purchased the property in dispute, were entered in the revenue record vide mutation Nos.996 and name of plaintiff No.3, who had purchased leasehold rights of the property in dispute, was entered in the revenue record vide mutation No.997.
3. As a matter of fact, as per the pleadings of the parties, defendant No.1 Jai Pal was the owner of the property in dispute. Defendant No.4 Kartar and defendant No.5 Balraj are his sons. Defendant No.l executed a lease deed dated 19.07.2001 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Defendant No.l sold the property in dispute to defendant No.6 (Gian Chand) vide registered sale deed dated 28.06.2004 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 sold their leasehold rights in favour of defendant No.6 vide registered lease deed dated 28.06.2004. Vide registered sale deed dated 27.05.2005, defendant No.6 sold his ownership right in the property in dispute to plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, whereas defendant No.6 also sold leasehold rights to plaintiff No.3 on 27.05.2005. Sale deed and lease deed dated 28.06.2004 were mutated in favour of defendant No.6 vide mutation Nos.994 and 995 on 22.07.2005, whereas sale deed dated 27.05.2005 (in favour of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2) and lease deed dated 27.05.2005 (in favour of plaintiff No.3) were mutated in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 vide mutation Nos.996 and 997 on 22.07.2005 respectively. However, vide its order dated 30.01.2006, the Collector, Faridabad set aside the mutation No.995 sanctioned in favour of defendant No.6. Defendant No.4 filed the Civil Suit No.685 of 18.08.2005 against defendant No.6 (Gian Chand) and defendant No.5 (Balraj) challenged the lease deed executed by him on 28.06.2004 in favour of defendant No.6. In the said Civil Suit No.685 of 18.08.2005 titled as Kartar Singh v. Gian Chand and another, defendant No.4 (plaintiff in the said suit) has prayed for decree for declaration 1 to the effect that lease deed dated 28.06.2004 bearing Vasika No.3717 is null and void and does not create any right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.6 and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.6 from interfering in his peaceful possession. In the said suit, vide order dated 05.10.2005, the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. It is also pertinent to mention that in th
