RSA-3376-2018

--1--

105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-3376-2018

Decided on:-21.09.2022

Sangeeta Bakshi and others

....Appellants...

vs.

Y.R. Aggarwal and ors.

....Respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate,

for the appellants.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

In the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the

judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Court of learned

Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the judgment and decree

dated 30.04.2016 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Faridabad, has been reversed and a suit for possession by way of mandatory

injunction, filed at the instance of respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs has been

decreed.

2.

The facts leading to the present case are that respondents No.1

to 3-plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction along with prayer for

permanent injunction stating therein that they had purchased the suit

property i.e. House No.681, Sector 21-B, vide registered sale deed dated

08.06.2011 from respondent No.4 herein. It was further submitted that at the

time of execution of sale deed, the possession of first and second floor was

handed over to the respondents-plaintiffs, whereas the appellants remained

in occupation of the ground floor as licensee. As per the plaint, the

SONIKA

2022.09.23 18:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-3376-2018

--2--

possession of ground floor was retained by the present appellants as

licensee, with the promise that they shall vacate the same within a period of

4/5 months, as they were looking for rented accommodation for their own. It

has been further submitted that despite repeated requests, the appellants did

not hand over the possession of the ground floor, hence, a suit for

mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction was filed.

3.

On notice, the appellants being defendants No.1 to 4 filed their

written statement stated therein that respondent No.4 herein had no right to

sell the property in question to respondents No.1 to 3. It has been further

submitted that in a family partition, the property in question fell into the

share of late Ajay Bakshi (husband of appellant No.1).

4.

The learned trial court, vide its judgment and decree dated

30.04.2016, dismissed the suit holding that the same was not maintainable

in the present form. It was held that respondents No.1 to 3 being owners

were required to file suit for possession based on title being an efficacious

remedy available to them rather than file a suit for mandatory injunction.

Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016, respondents

No.1 to 3 filed their first appeal before the court of learned Additional

District Judge, Faridabad. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and

decree dated 10.03.2017, has allowed the appeal filed at the instance of

respondents No.1 to 3, holding that once, the appellants have not been able

to establish their right, title or interest over the suit property through their

predecessor-in-interest late Mr.Ajay Bakshi, as such, their status remained

as licensee and the suit for mandatory injunction could have been

entertained having been filed at the instance of original owner. The learned

First Appellate Court has also directed respondents No.1 to 3 to pay the

SONIKA

2022.09.23 18:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-3376-2018

--3--

requisite ad valorem court fee within a period of one month from the date of

passing its judgment and decree, as a condition precedent. It is the aforesaid

judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017, which has been challenged by way

of present appeal.

5.

It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the

appellants that though respondents No.1 to 3 have been proved to be owners

of the suit property, still remedy of filing a suit for possession was ava