Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
Anand Jeewan & Others —Petitioners
versus
Rajpal & Others —Respondents
Civil Revision No. 332 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided on 17.01.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Singh Sheokand, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
When a prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff regarding title of the suit property and defendants have no title, the interim injunction can be granted restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151—Interim injunction against alienation of suit land— Plaintiff alleging bonafide allottee of the land in dispute by Gram Panchayat under a Government Scheme—The plaintiff alleging to be member of Scheduled Caste and poor persons- No document put on record to establish ownership of defendants- Grant of interim injunction by the trial Court against the defendants restraining them from alienating the suit land during pendency of the suit, upheld.
Facts of the case
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction alongwith application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151 for interim injunction against the defendants, restraining them from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit and accordingly interim injunction was granted by the trial Court. The plaintiffs alleged that they belonged to Schedule Caste community and were poor persons and therefore under the Scheme of the Government, Gram Panchayat allotted the suit property to them. It was alleged that due to wrong revenue entry the defendants intended to disturb the plaintiffs and to alienate the suit land.
Findings of the court
In order to stop multiplicity of litigations in future and to stop any misuse of any earlier order, already set aside by subsequent orders, on the part of appellants/defendants, the learned trial court has rightly found that three ingredients of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money standing in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. Any further alienation of the suit property will not hinder merits of the present case itself and a party misguiding or concealing facts should be restrained by an injunction order, temporary or permanently. Furthermore, respondents/ applicants have been allotted place by the gram Panchayat. The gift deed may not have come into force for non grant of possession but the land belonging to gram panchayat should not be misappropriated by any third person.
Result: Revision Petition Dismissed.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent-plaintiffs Rajpal son of Basanta and others (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration, possession and permanent injunction, along with the application (Annexure P2) for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, restraining petitioners-defendants Anand Jeewan and others (for short “the defendants”) from alienating the suit land, in any manner, during the pendency of the suit.
2. Sequelly, the defendants contested the suit & stay application (Annexure P2), filed written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court accepted the injunction application (Annexure P2) filed by the Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.22 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from alienating the land in litigation or creating any further charge over it, by means of impugned order dated 7.1.2013 (Annexure P4).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal (Annexure P5) filed by the defendants was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 9.10.2013 (Annexure P6).
5. The petitioner-defendants still did not feel satisfied and have preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned order and judgment of Courts below, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since neither there was any prima facie case nor balance of convenience were in favour of plaintiffs, so, the Courts below committed legal mistake to grant injunction of alienation against the defendants, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Smt.Sunita Jain and others v. Chander Kanta and others, (1996-1) PLR 293 (P&H) wherein, it was observed that a mere challenge to the consent decree is no ground to grant injunction until and unless it was shown to the satisfaction of the Court that a prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiffs, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs claimed that they are very poor persons belonging to scheduled caste community and gram panchayat has allotted the plots to them, in pursuance of the scheme of Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.22 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh the Government. Earlier, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting defendants No.1 to 4 was shown to be in possession as occupancy tenant in the suit property and he had obtained occupancy rights, by way of order dated 22.11.1990 of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. This order was set aside by the Collector, through the medium of order dated 25.6.1992 and the appeal filed against the order of Collector was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, by means of order dated 21.12.1992. However, on the basis of wrong revenue entries made as per the order dated 22.11.1990 of Collector, which stands already set aside, now the defendants intend to forcibly disturb the plaintiffs and to alienate the land in dispute without any legal right. The plaintiffs, being allottees, are exclusive owners of the disputed land. On the contrary, the case of the defendants was that the matter of ownership is still pending in the High Court. Be that as it may, they were never declared owners by any Court till today. That means, the plaintif
