- (1.) THE plaintiffs are minors represented through their mother as natural guardian in Civil Suit No.27 of 2013 instituted before the trial court at Sonepat. The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction. The father of the children is no more. In the suit, an application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for grant of temporary injunction to the defendants restraining them from alienating or otherwise encumbering suit land and for restraining them from interfering in their peaceful possession of the property in dispute. In the title suit, a prayer is made for annulling the registered sale deed dated 29.11.2012 whereby the suit land measuring 11 kanals and 18 marlas described in the head note to the plaint was sold to defendants no.1 to 3, respondents herein, by their late father Kuldeep Singh who at that point of time was being treated at the De -addition Centre. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that the suit land was ancestral property inherited by Kuldeep Singh from his father by natural succession and the alienation could only have been for the welfare of the minors and for legal necessity. It was complained that the sale deed was executed without any legal necessity and for this reason as well, the same is not binding on the rights of the minors. The suit was brought to protect peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Various pleas have been taken by the defendants in protection of their rights over the suit property on the basis of sale deed which are not necessary for the decision of the present case and are left open for the trial court to adjudge.
(2.) THE moot point in this case is whether actual physical possession was delivered consequent to execution of the sale deed. In defence of the application for temporary injunction, the defendants admit that a criminal case stands registered against them as vendees, but it is a false case set up to blackmail them and to extract money.
(3.) THE trial judge has examined Mutation No.2090 that followed the sale deed which clearly reveals that the suit land was inherited by Kuldeep Singh from his father, and therefore, the issue of legal necessity is a seriously triable issue and ancestral nature of the co -parcenary property has to be adjudicated. The learned trial judge has noticed from a perusal of the written statement and the reply filed to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 that the defendants have not pleaded the issue of legal necessity. The learned trial judge has also noticed from the challan presented under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.480 dated 28.12.2012 registered at P.S. Sadar Sonepat under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of the IPC before the trial court for commission of the aforesaid offences by forging the sale deed. The learned trial judge has also noticed from the challan docket that out of a total sale consideration of Rs.37,19,000/ -, an amount of Rs.9.00 lacs was deposited in the bank account of late Kuldeep Singh on 30.11.2012 i.e. one day after the registration of the sale deed. The trial court has also found on prima facie examination of the challan docket that the remaining amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.28,19,000/ - has not been accounted for by the vendees. Charges have been framed and the criminal trial is going on.;