Judgment:
Civil Revision No.6269 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.6269 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:
04. 12.2012 Dev Dutt and another ....Petitioners versus Lajja Rani and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the respondents.
A.N.JINDAL, J (ORAL) The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division).Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide order dated 01.02.2012 while allowing the injunction application of the plaintiffs-petitioners (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioners').had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and construction over the suit property.
However, the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 01.10.2012, accepted the appeal; reversed the aforesaid order and declined to grant injunction in favour of the petitioneRs.The factual background of the case is that the petitioner No.1 claimed himself to be owners in possession of the suit property having purchased from previous owner Ram Nath vide sale deed dated 18.02.1991.
Mutation No.709 dated Civil Revision No.6269 of 2012 (O&M”
26. 02.1991 was sanctioned in his favour on the basis of the said sale deed on 26.02.1991.
He had raised construction over the said plot in the year 1991, but later on removed the old construction and raised new one.
Subsequently, petitioner No.1 executed a registered agreement to sell dated 23.12.2011 with petitioner No.2.
not petitioner No.2 has started raising construction over the said plot, whereas, the defendants- respondents (hereinafter referred as 'the respondents') who have no right, title or interest over the said property, want to create obstruction in the construction, raised by petitioner No.2.
As such, they filed the suit.
The said suit was contested by the respondents by pleading that they had purchased the suit property from Prem Kumari vide two registered sale deeds Nos.2633 and 2634 dated 10.08.2007 against sale consideration and not they are in actual physical possession of the said property.
The respondents had also got sanctioned site plan of the suit property from the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar and deposited a sum of Rs.1,66,268/- on account of development charges.
As such, the petitioners have no right, title or interest over the said property.
The trial Court granted injunction in favour of the petitioneRs.whereas the fiRs.Appellate Court declined such relief.
Heard.
Though the petitioner No.1 claimed himself to be owner of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 18.02.1991, on the basis of which, mutation No.709 was sanctioned on 26.02.1991 and later on he had entered into an agreement to sell dated 23.12.2011 with petitioner No.2, but no Civil Revision No.6269 of 2012 (O&M) 3 such sale deed has been placed on record in order to prove the title.
Mutation No.709, prima facie, cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the title.
On the other hand, the respondents claim ownership and possession over the suit property having purchased the same from Prem Kumari vide two sale deeds Nos.2633 and 2634 dated 10.08.2007 against a valid sale consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a compromise dated 02.07.2006 executed between Dev Dutt and Prem Kumari, which indicates that Prem Kumari had admitted the possession of Dev Dutt at the spot.
Therefore, the petitioners have sought to place reliance on the said compromise dated 02.07.2006 and pressed to hold their possession over the suit property.
As regards the documents with regard to earlier litigation between Dev Dutt and Prem Kumari, it may be observed that the present respondents were not parties to the earlier suit.
Prem Kumari having already sold the suit property to the respondents, could not make such admission in the suit filed by Dev Dutt against her, Manphool Singh, Iqbal Chand Oberoi, Kasturi Lal and Narinder Kumar.
She having ceased to be the owner, could not make any such statement, therefore, the document on the basis of which, the petitioners are placing reliance, is of no consequence, as the present respondents were not parties to the said suit.
The trial Court is still to decide about the genuineness of the aforesaid compromise.
On the other hand, the assessment registers placed by the respondents indicate that earlier Krishan Chand was Civil Revision No.6269 of 2012 (O&M) 4 recorded as owner in possession of the suit property.
Thereafter, in the year 2008-09, his wife Lajja Rani is recorded as owner in possession.
The house tax receipts for the year 2009 are also in the name of Lajja Rani.
As such, it is established on record that the respondents are in possession over the suit property and the petitioners have failed to establish their possession by way of any cogent documentary evidence.
The fiRs.Appellate Court appears to have properly appreciated the factual position in reversing the order passed by the trial Court.
Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
(A.N.JINDAL) 04.12.2012 JUDGE ajp