In a suit for permanent injunction, issues of title cannot be adjudicated without necessary pleadings being present, following the guidance of established Supreme Court principles.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred by the defendant No.1-petitioner against the impugned order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa whereby additional issues have been framed by the Trial Court.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that they are in possession as gair marusi on land measuring 67 kanals 4 marlas fully described in the plaint as per the jamabandi for year 2009-2010 situated at Hamirgarh Dhaipi, Tehsil Bhikhi, District Mansa and that the defendants had no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff2023: respondents and that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiff-respondents. After the plaintiff-respondents had concluded their evidence and the evidence of the defendants had started, an application was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for framing additional issues with regard to the pleas taken by the defendant No.1 in his written statement regarding execution of a transfer deed dated 03.03.2016 in favour of one Gurdial Singh and regarding sale deed dated 10.05.2016 executed by the said Gurdial Singh in favour of the defendants. The application was contested by the defendants and a reply was filed by defendant No.2. Vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2018 the following additional issues were framed by the Trial Court:

"5-A) Whether Kartar Singh, Mohan Singh, Kirpal Singh sons of Ralla Singh had transferred the land in favour of their brother Gurdial Singh on 03.06.2016? OPD

5-B) Whether the defendants have purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 10.05.2016 from Gurdial Singh? OPD

5-C) Whether the defendants are bonafide purchaser of the suit land, without notice, for consideration? OPD

6) Relief"

3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner. The defendant No.1-petitioner relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors. (2008(2) RCR 879) has contended that in a suit for permanent injunction the issue of title cannot be gone into. The learned counsel has further contended that in case the plaintiff-respondents seek to challenge the sale deed and the transfer deed, a suit for declaration would necessarily have to be filed and the issue of title cannot be gone into in a suit for simpliciter injunction.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has contended that even in a suit for injunction the question of title can be gone into if the issues are framed and evidence led accordingly.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the present case the plaintiff-respondents filed a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession. The suit was contested by the defendants setting up their ownership by relying on a transfer deed dated 03.03.2016 and sale deed No.187 dated 10.05.2016 and mutation dated 24.05.2016 based on the said sale deed. The said written statement was filed on 01.03.2017. On 22.01.2018 the application for framing of additional issues was filed. The Trial Court framed three additional issues qua the transfer deed and sale deed as reproduced above.

7. In the present case there is no challenge to the fact that Kartar Singh, Mohan Singh, Kirpal Singh, sons of Ralla Singh, executed a transfer deed in favour of their brother Gurdial Singh on 03.03.2016 as also no challenge has been laid to the sale deed dated 10.05.2016 executed by Gurdial Singh