Arun Palli, J. - (1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was decreed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 23.08.2013. Appeal preferred against the said decree was accepted by the learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014. That is how the plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.) IN short, the case set out by the plaintiff was that she was the owner in possession of 670/32000 share of land measuring 16 Kanal, detailed in the plaint, whereupon a residential house was constructed. It was averred that the plaintiff had purchased the said property from Nirmala Devi D/o Mohinder Pal vide sale deed No. 618 dated 12.5.2009 for consideration. Thus, plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession of the house in question. It was however, maintained that plaintiff was not dealing in any manner with the defendants nor had obtained any loan or owed any debt to the defendants. Yet, defendants were bent upon to proceed against her house and get it auctioned. Defendants in defence pleaded, inter -alia, that the husband of the plaintiff namely Anil Kumar had committed fraud with defendant No. 1. FIR No. 67 dated 17.08.2009, Police Station Boha, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 120B IPC was registered. And even plaintiff was arrested in the said case as accused. It was maintained that the plaintiff and her husband Anil Kumar had purchased the suit property out of the embezzled amount. Further, defendants could recover the amount by auctioning the plot.
(3.) ON an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff was the owner in possession of the suit property, pursuant to a sale deed Ex. P -1. Injunction being claimed by the plaintiff was resisted on the ground that, suit property was purchased by the plaintiff out of the money she and her husband had got by committing fraud. It was observed, that the defendants had led no evidence to establish that the amount used for purchasing the said property by the plaintiff was indeed got by her by fraud. Documents Mark -A to Mark -O were held to have not been proved in accordance with law. It was observed that DW -1 Pritpal Singh, Manager of Mansa Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., had stated in his cross -examination that plaintiff was not the customer of the Bank and they did not want to proceed against her property forcibly or illegally. Resultantly, suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 23.08.2013 and the defendants were permanently restrained from proceeding against plaintiff in respect of suit property except by due course of law.;