- (1.) C.M. No.20615-CII of 2014: For the averments made in the civil miscellaneous application, the documents attached with the criminal miscellaneous application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. C.R. No.5342 of 2014: Ranjeet Singh etc.-petitioners/defendants have filed this civil revision petition against Harminder Kaur etc.-respondents/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, vide which the ad-interim injunction application of the respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed and the order dated 2.5.2014 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.
(2.) From the record, I find that the plaintiffs-Harminder Kaur etc. filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual, physical and peaceful cultivating possession of the plaintiffs over the land measuring 77 Kanals 17 Marlas and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was also filed along with the suit. The brief facts of the case are that initially Smt. Sushma, Anita and Smt. Renu daughters of Shri Chunni Lal were owners in possession of the suit land measuring 77 Kanals 17 Marlas on the basis of judgment and decree dated 24.9.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, in which the they had challenged the Will allegedly executed by Chunni Lal in favour of his wife Smt. Krishna Devi and on the basis of said judgment and decree mutation was also entered and sanctioned in favour of said Sushma etc. On the basis of said judgment and decree and mutation, said Sushma etc. had entered into the agreement to sell dated 27.8.2011 with Shri Atma Singh, husband of plaintiff No.1 and on the basis of said agreement to sell, the sale deeds dated 20.8.2013 were also executed and the possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs at the spot along with the crops standing on the suit land and since then the plaintiffs are in actual, physical and peaceful cultivating possession of the suit land as exclusive owners. The defendants have started threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs.
(3.) On the other hand the defendants' case is that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. It is also stated that the vendors of the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest to execute sale deeds in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that when the vendors of the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest to execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, then the alleged sale deeds are illegal, null and void and do not confer any right, title or interest on the plaintiffs. Moreover, since the vendors of the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property, the question of delivery of possession to the plaintiffs by their vendors does not arise at all. It is also the case of the defendants that they had purchased land measuring 75 Kanals 14 Marlas from Krishna Devi widow of Chunni Lal and the daughters of Krishna Devi have filed a civil suit, in which the Court vide order dated 24.9.2009 has held that her daughters are entitled to 3/5th share of the property of their father Chunni Lal, meaning thereby the defendants are entitled for 2/5th share i.e. share of Krishna Devi and her deceased son Sunil Kumar.;