RAVINDER Vs. VIRENDER SINGH
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.