- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA No.2773 of 2011 arising out of Civil Suit No.79 of 2004 titled as "Sunehra and others v. Smt. Sheelam Sohi and others" and RSA No.2772 of 2011 arising out of Civil Suit No.80 of 2004 titled as "Dharam Singh and others v. Smt. Sheelam Sohi and others". Both the appeals have been filed by Sheelam Sohi, arrayed as defendant no.1 in both the suits, filed for permanent injunction.
(2.) THE appellant had filed counter -claim as well but in both the cases, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and the counter -claim was dismissed. The appeals filed by the present appellants before the lower Appellate Court were also dismissed in both the cases.
(3.) IN Civil Suit No.79 of 2004, the plaintiffs have alleged that they had executed an agreement to sell on 02.05.1990 in favour of defendant no.1 and received Rs. 3,000/ - as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 01.05.1991 on the payment of balance sale consideration but defendant no.1 neither paid the balance sale consideration nor got the sale deed executed and registered as per terms and conditions of the agreement. As a result, the agreement dated 02.05.1990 fell through and they remained in possession of the land in dispute as owners but the defendants started asserting their right in the property in question and since the plaintiffs were apprehending that they may be dispossessed from the land in question with the help of police with intent to excavate sand, bajri, boulders and stones etc., therefore, they prayed for injunction to restrain them. On the other hand, in the written statement filed by defendant no.1, she admitted that plaintiff no.1 and Bharta, being co -sharers to the extent of half share in the land in question, had executed an agreement to sell on 02.05.1990 in her favour through her husband Ravinder Singh on payment of Rs. 3,000/ -. The sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 01.05.1991 for which she has already been ready and willing. It is further alleged that she had paid full and final sale consideration to the plaintiffs on 06.02.1991 in the presence of witnesses who assured that they would execute the sale deed in her favour and executed General Power of Attorney on 06.02.1991 in favour of defendant no.3 and handed over possession of the land in question to her through her husband as owner on the spot. It is further alleged that since her husband died on 03.07.2001 and, thereafter, intention of plaintiffs became mala fide and they tried to disturb her possession regarding which a complaint was made by her father -in -law (defendant no.2). She has claimed that her possession over the land in dispute is protected under Section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short "the Act"). She also set up a counter claim for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to execute and register the sale deed regarding the land in question in her favour and also for permanent injunction restraining them to alienate the aforesaid land.;