Decided on August 07,2007

RAVINDER Appellant


J.M.MALIK,J. - (1.) THE appellant / plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 22.10.1996 as well as for permanent injunction praying that the defendants / respondents be restrained from dispossessing him from the suit land. This court vide its order dated 18.09.1997 directed the defendants / respondents not to create any third party interest and directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. Previously the case was pending before this court but due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the case was transferred before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge vide its order dated 31.01.2007 dismissed the application moved by the appellant / plaintiff and allowed the application of the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Aggrieved by that order first appeal was preferred. I dismissed the appeal vide my order dated 15.03.2007.
(2.) IN the meantime, the respondents moved an application before the District Judge dated 05.07.2007, wherein the following averments were made. After vacation of the interim order the appellant brought labour at the land in dispute on 03.05.2007 in order to cultivate the land. The appellant called the police, made a complaint that the respondents were taking possession of his land and were attempting to manhandle him. Appellant, who was accompanied by various jhuggi dwellers claimed that he would not allow the defendants/respondents to cultivate their land. Both the parties were taken to the police station. It is alleged that the appellant had good influence over the police, he being a property dealer. The police also threatened the respondents. The respondents prayed that the appellant be restrained from interfering in respondents' peaceful possession of the land in dispute till the disposal of the suit. It was further prayed that SHO be directed not to create any hindrance in cultivation of the suit land. The appellant contested this application. His main defence is that even if it is assumed that appellant is in illegal possession of the suit property, even then, he cannot be thrown out of the suit land without due process of law. He also pointed out that prior to the agreement with the respondents he had entered into agreement with their father viz. Mahender Singh on 18.10.1995. The copy of agreement to sell and purchase was produced before me. Vide para no. 2 of said agreement the possession of the land was handed over to the appellant. Subsequently, it transpired that father of the appellant had no right, title or interest in the case property and the appellant entered into an agreement with one Sohan Pal Singh dated 26.10.1995, wherein para no. 2, it was reiterated that the possession was given to the appellant. However, subsequently, the appellant came to know that these were the respondents, the sons of Mahender Singh, who were the real owners of the land in dispute. Ultimately, the appellant entered into an agreement to sell with the respondents on 22.10.1996. Appellant also moved an application under Section 151 CPC that in order to ascertain physical possession of the suit land Local Commissioner may be appointed.
(3.) THE learned ADJ held that vide his order dated 31.01.2007 he had dealt with the aspect of possession. According to record, 3 acres of land is lying vacant and in case of vacant land it is very easy to make oral plea about the possession but agreement dated 22.10.1996 does not favour the appellant. Secondly, the appellant had made contradictory statements. Trial court did not accept the request of the appellant to appoint Local Commissioner. Trial court, however, accepted the application moved by the respondents and restrained the appellant from interfering in use and cultivation of the land measuring 3 acres comprised in Khasra no. 5/14, 15, 16, min 17 situated in village Jindpur Delhi. The trial court also observed that there was apprehension of altercation between the parties, therefore, in order to avoid such unforeseen eventualities, copy of the order was sent to SHO, Police Station Narela for getting compliance of his order in terms of Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. T.M. Nagarajan and Ors., 1988 (15) DRJ 212.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.