The significance of possessory title and settled possession in cases of granting permanent injunction, and the importance of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in granting temporary injunction.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Pleadings are complete. Parties are ready to argue the matter finally and, accordingly, it is finally heard.

2. This petition is against the order dated 22.01.2019 (Annexure-P/9) passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Shahdol, in a miscellaneous civil appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the appellate Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.3 herein.

3. In a suit preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.3 herein for grant of decree of permanent injunction, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction was filed, but that was rejected, then an appeal was preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been decided by the order impugned and hence, this petition.

4. The facts leading to the present petition in a nutshell are as under:-

That respondent No.3/plaintiff filed a suit for granting decree of permanent injunction against the defendants especially the present petitioner/defendant No.3 in the suit.

As per the averments made in the plaint, the father namely, late Bala Dheemar, of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, owned and possessed the land situated over Khasra No.743 area measuring .05 decimal or .020 hectares. Except defendant Nos.1 and 2, there was no other successor of late Bala Dheemar and after lapse of time, Khasra No.743 has been divided in four parts and as such, recorded in the revenue record as Khasra No.743/1 to 743/4 respectively. Late Bala Dheemar in his lifetime got defendant Nos.1 and 2 married and they used to reside in their in-laws house. After the death of Bala Dheemar, defendant Nos.1 and 2 inherited the property of Bala Dheemar. Since they used to reside in village Pongari and the land in question situates over village Sohagpur, they intended to sell the property and made a proposal before the plaintiff/respondent No.3 herein. An agreement to sell i.e. Annexure-P/2 was executed on 24.03.2001. In pursuance to which, it was agreed to sell on a consideration of Rs.25,000/- which was paid in cash at the time of execution of the agreement and as such, registered agreement was executed.

Since the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 had not been recorded in the revenue record after the death of Bala Dheemar, therefore, it was assured that after getting their names mutated, sale-deed would be executed in pursuance to the agreement to sale. An affidavit was also sworn by the respondents/defendant No.1 and 2 stating therein, since they received the whole amount of consideration, therefore, possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff/respondent No.3 herein and after mutation of their names, the sale-deed would be executed. It is also stated in the plaint that the land situated within the scheduled area and as such, permission for selling the land from the Collector is required as per requirement of Section 165 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code 1959).

Proceedings for seeking permission were initiated and pending and as soon as the permission is granted, the sale-deed would be executed. The plaintiff/respondent No.3 was in possession of the land and was using the same from the date of agreement, but the present petitioner/defendant No.3 started raising construction over his land and tried to dispossess the plaintiff/respondent No.3. A report was made to the police in this regard in Police Station Sohagpur, but no action was taken, then cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.3 to file a suit for seeking decree of permanent injunction.

The defendants filed their reply stating therein that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have never executed any agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.3 and the said agreement is false and fabricated.

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have stated th