Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2706
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 plaintiffs, by establishing their possession over the disputed land, were entitled to an injunction to protect their possession.
Headnote:
CPC - Civil Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - 1908 - [Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908]
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 a disputed land. The defendants had sold and leased the land to the plaintiffs, and there were multiple legal proceedings and orders related to the ownership and possession of the land.
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 lower Court's order was set aside, and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the plaintiffs' peaceful possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction to protect their possession of the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiffs had prima facie established their possession over the disputed land, and the balance of convenience was in their favor. The Court also noted that the lease deed in favor of the defendants was a paper transaction and was never intended to be acted upon.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the Appellate Court 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. It 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 mother, defendant No.4 (plaintiff in the said suit) has prayed for decree for declaration 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 the
