- (1.) By means of this appeal M/s. Savy Homes (P) Ltd. the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has challenged the order dated 02.02.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Agra in Original Suit No. 617 of 2010 (M/s. Savy Homes (P) Ltd. Vs. Nikhil Indus Infrastructure Ltd. And others) whereby the application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure moved by the appellant was rejected.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant filed Original Suit No.617 of 2010 against the defendants-respondents for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in peaceful possession of the appellant over the property in suit. Along with the suit the appellant also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction. The appellant pleaded that: The Appellant is the owner in possession of the land measuring 2976.07 sq. metres out of khasra nos.360, 398, 437 and 438 situated in Mauza Babarpur, Tehsil and District- Agra by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 04.12.2009 executed by Agra Zila Swatantrata Sangram Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Litd. (the Samiti) and possession was also delivered to the appellant; and Intitially one Hakim Singh s/o Chhiddu Singh had 1/6 share in the aforesaid khasras along with other co-sharers and he sold his share to the Samiti on 22.03.1990. There was some dispute regarding stamp duty and ultimately the sale deed was registered in favour of the Samiti on 04.02.2009 which thereafter transferred the land to the appellant.
(3.) The defendant-respondent no.1 Nikhil Indus Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1) filed the reply to the application for temporary injunction moved by the appellant. In the reply the respondent no.1 denied all the allegations made in the plaint as well as injunction application alleging that- The appellant has no right, title or interest in the property in suit and is not in possession over the same; The land over which the appellant has claimed his ownership and possession showing the same in rectangular form comprising of khasra nos. 360, 398, 437 and 438 is incorrect. All these khasras are situated at different places i.e. they are not at one place and are scattered; The respondent no.1 has purchased some portion of khasra no.437 and 438 and various other khasras from one Nikhil Homes Ltd. and after getting the sale deed in his favour, he raised boundary wall over the property purchased by him and in fact the respondent no.1 is in actual possession over the property; and That the respondent no.1 has also got a map sanctioned from the Agra Development Authority and also started developing a residential colony over the said land.;