- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The plaintiffs/appellants are aggrieved against the order of the trial court dated 28.8.2001 by which their injunction application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/ appellants filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by the respondent no.1 society in favour of the respondent no.3 on the ground that the suit property was purchased by the respondent no.1 society from the money taken from the public of village with a clear understanding that the property shall be used for public purpose. The society sold this property to the private individual respondent no.3, therefore, the sale deed is illegal and void. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property is in possession of the public at large and the respondents have no right to use the property in dispute. The plaintiffs also produced few receipts evidencing the payment of donation for which coupons were issued by the respondent no.1 society.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent society is engaged in large public utility activities and for upliftment of villagers, the society has many activities. The property was purchased by the society and the land was mutated in the name of respondent society. Since the society stopped its working from this suit land, therefore, the land was of no use to the society and hence, the same was sold to the respondent no.3. It is further submitted that since the society was doing the work of public utility, therefore, the society persons were living and utilising the property but when the purpose fulfilled and the society could do the activities in the village, therefore, they sold the property to the respondent no.3. IN view of the above, since the plaintiffs have no title in the property nor they have any right in the suit property, therefore, they were not entitled to any injunction. It is also submitted that the respondent society was in possession and now the respondent no.3 is in possession of the suit property but because of the stay order passed by this Court on 15.9.2001, the respondent no.3 is also not cultivating the land. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the trial court considered the merits of the case and found that no prima-facie case is made out by the plaintiffs for grant of injunction, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.;