JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed by the plaintiff - Savitri Devi (appellant herein), against the concurrent findings of dismissal of suit filed by her.

2. Plaintiff - Savitri Devi filed a suit for seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the sole defendant - Ashok Kumar (respondent herein), by stating that she being owner in possesion of the land comprised in Khewat No.150, Khatoni No.186, Rect. No.32, Killa No.5 (7-4), 4 min (1- 16), total measuring 9 Kanals, situated within the revenue estate of Village Rasiawas, Tehsil Bawal, Distrtict Rewari (for brevity, the 'suit land'), is entitled to protect her possession, which was delivered to her vide sale-deed Vasika No.4508, dated 12.12.2011, by the defendant - Ashok Kumar. Plaintiff claims her continuous possession since the time of execution of the sale-deed (Ex.PW2/B) i.e. 12.12.2011.

3. It is further pleaded that mutation No.848, has been got cancelled by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Bawal, due to non-payment of the loan amount by the defendant - Ashok Kumar, which was taken from the Union Bank of India Branch, Rewari. As the defendant did not disclose the actual facts, and no entry of any loan was entered in the Jamabandi, plaintiff filed a criminal case against the defendant and Halqa Patwar namely; Gurdial Singh, under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 of IPC, and proceedings regarding the same were pending.

In the meantime, Union Bank of India (UBI) filed a recovery suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the DRT') against the defendant - Ashok Kumar, for taking permission to recover the loan from mortgaged suit land.

It is further pleaded by the plaintiff herself that defendant approached to her husband namely; Jeet Ram, for depositing the loan amount of UBI, Rewari, and in lieu of that, defendant promised that he will transfer his total suit land in the name of plaintiff's husband. Under the said promise, husband of the plaintiff handed-over a demand draft dated 01.08.2013, amounting to Rs.16.10 lakhs, to the defendant. Defendant - Ashok Kumar, deposited the said demand draft before the DRT, Chandigarh, and thereafter, filed his objection against the auction. However, later on, defendant became dishonest and withdrew his objection. Now, the defendant wants to grab the said money i.e. Rs.16.10 lakhs paid by the plaintiff's husband through demand draft, and is further keen to see the plaintiff out of the possession of the suit land. Thus, suit for permanent injunction was instituted.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the facts emerged that the suit is not maintainable on several grounds like; non joinder of auction purchaser - Satbir Singh, jurisdiction of confirmation of sale vide DRT, Chandigarh, having been already exercised. It is also pleaded in the written statement that mutation of sale-deed No.848 (Ex.PW2/B), has already been cancelled by AC, 2nd Grade, Bawal, and in fact, no possession was delivered to the plaintiff at any point of time. Even at the time of sale-deed (Ex.PW2/B), plaintiff was not present, thus, question of delivery of possession does not arise.

5. After completion of pleading of the parties, learned Trial Court vide its order dated 20.05.2014, framed following seven issues:-

"(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of property mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the plaint? OPP

(2) Whether the defendants are interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property without any right to do so? OPP

(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

(4) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of filing