Balbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Palak Ram Vs Hari Mohan S/o Late Sh. Palak Ram

¶1

2025:HHC:20622

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶4

Reserved on: 4.4.2025

¶5

Date of decision: 1 .7.2025

¶6

1. FAO No. 104 of 2024
Balbir Singh	….Appellant.
Versus Hari Mohan and others.	….Respondents.
2. FAO No. 155 of 2024
Liberating Minds Foundation.	….Appellant.
Versus
Balbir Singh & others.	….Respondents.

¶7

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes. FAO No.104 of 2024

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr.Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr.P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶9

Mr.Navneet Kumar Bhalla, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

¶10

Notices not issued to respondents No. 1, 5 and 6.

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶12

2025:HHC:20622

¶13

2

¶14

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶15

FAO No. 155 of 2024

¶16

For the appellant :

¶17

Mr.Navneet Kumar Bhalla, Advocate.

¶18

For the Respondent(s): Mr.Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Somesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶19

Mr.Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 6. Respondent No. 4 ex parte vide order dated 25.2.2025.

¶20

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

¶21

These two appeals arising out of the one and the same order passed by District Judge Solan (Trial Court), for involvement of common question of facts and law, are being decided by this common judgment.

¶22

Appeal No. 104 of 2024 has been preferred by plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh, whereas plaintiff No. 2 Amar Devi and plaintiff No. 3 Asha Dei have been arrayed as proforma respondents in this appeal. Defendants No. 1 to 4 Hari Mohan, Randeep Singh, Salochna and Librating Minds Foundation are respondents No. 1 to 4 in this appeal.

¶23

FAO No. 155 of 2024 has been preferred by defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation, wherein plaintiffs Balbir Singh, Amar Devi, Asha Devi are respondents No. 1 to 3, whereas defendants No. 1 to

¶24

2025:HHC:20622

¶25

3

¶26

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶27

3 namely Hari Mohan, Randeep and Salochna are respondents No. 4 to

¶28

¶29

Parties to the lis, herein after, for convenience, shall be referred as per their status in the Civil Suit.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

¶31

Plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit for specific performance and permanent prohibitory injunction and alternatively for recovery of damages to the tune of 1,00,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per₹ annum against the defendants including defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation with following prayer:-

¶32

“1. By passing a decree of declaration to the following effects:-

¶33

Declaring the Sale Deed No. 2264 dated 21-11-2017 registered with Sub- Registrar Solan to be wrong, illegal, null and void and is not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs, so far as the same pertains to the suit land.

¶34

A decree of specitic performance of the contract is to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants directing the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed with respect to Khasra No. Khata/Khatauni No. 184/239, Khasra No. 1125/995/707/191, measuring 01-01-00 Bighas, to the extent Of 17/21 share, which comes to 0.17 Biswas in terms of Agreement dated 21-06-2016 by passing a decree accordingly.

¶35

A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is to be passe favour of the plaintifs and against of the defendants, restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the suit land, restraining them from creating charge over the suit land, restraining them from alienating the suit land and also from changing nature of the suit land in

¶36

2025:HHC:20622

¶37

4

¶38

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶39

any manner, whatsoever either by themselves or through heir agents, assignees, servants etc. with respect to the suit land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 143/205, khasra No. 699/160, 705/191, 995/707/191, kitas 3, Khata/Khatuni No 146/208, Khasra No. 688/160,699/160,707/191, 1120/190 and 1130/200 situated in mauza Anji, Hadbast No. 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.

¶40

Decree of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be passed against the defendant no. 2 and in favour of plaintiff no. 1. Alternatively, decree of recovery of the damages is also to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the tune of Rs:1,00,00000/- as damages and thereby directing the defendants to pay Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as damages alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit tillits recalization in case defendants fail to honour the compromise deeds dated 1.06.2016, 2106-2016 and 28-06- 2016.

¶41

Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, in the interest of justice.”

¶42

Claim of plaintiffs is based upon compromise/agreements dated 11.5.2016, 21.6.2016 and 28.6.2016.

¶43

From pleadings and prayer clause it transpires that there are two sets of suit land. One set is stated to have been recorded in the revenue record in the ownership and possession of defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 184/239, Khasra No. 1125/995/707/191, measuring 01-01-00 bighas, i.e. 21 biswas, situated in Mauja Anji, Hadbast No. 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.; and second set of suit land is comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 143/205, Khasra Nos. 699/160, 705/191, 995/707/191, Khata/Khatauni No. 146/208, Khasra No.

¶44

2025:HHC:20622

¶45

5

¶46

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶47

688/160, 699/160, 707/191, 1120/90 and 1130/200 situated in Mauja Anji, Hadbast No. 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.

¶48

Record placed on record depicts that out of second set of land some land stood sold either by Hari Mohan or by one Krishana Devi, who was sister of Palak Ram and daughter of Chet Ram. Chet Ram was grand-father of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, whereas Palak Ram was their father. This set of land was sold by Hari Mohan and Krishana Devi to defendant No. 3 and some other persons.

¶49

Jamabandis for the year 2010-11 of Khasra No. 699/160, 705/191, 1125/995/707/191, 688/160, 1130/200 and 1120/190 are available in documents filed by plaintiffs.

¶50

Land comprised in Khasra No. 705/191, as per jamabandi, belongs to Jog Raj Bhagat S/o Swaran Bhagat but Jog Raj Bhagat is not party to the suit.

¶51

As per jamabandi Khasra No. 1125/995/707/191 is in the name of defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.

¶52

Revenue record/jamabandi of Khasra No. 707/191 is not on record.

¶53

As per jamabandi out of Khasra No. 688/160, some land was purchased by defendant No. 3 Salochna from Kuldeep Singh, S/o Kahan Singh vide sale deed dated 6.1.2012. Out of this Khasra number

¶54

2025:HHC:20622

¶55

6

¶56

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶57

co-owner Balbir and Gian had also sold land to one Preeti d/o Madan, but she is not party to the suit.

¶58

Khasra No. 699/160 was purchased by defendant No. 3 Salochna from Bhupinder Singh, S/o Nathu Ram vide sale deed dated 6.1.2012 and from defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan vide sale deed dated 17.2.2012.

¶59

Khasra No. 1120/190 and 1130/200 were purchased by defendant No. 3 Salochna from Sunil, S/o Sh. Sohan Dass, vide sale deed dated 6.6.2012.

¶60

According to copy of sale deed placed on record by plaintiffs, land comprised in Khasra No. 699/160, measuring 2-18 bigha; Khasra Nos. 1120/190 and 1130/200 measuring 4-15 bigha was purchased by defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation from defendant No. 3 Salochna vide sale deed No. 2264 of 2017, dated 21.11.2017 for sale consideration of 6,00,00,000/- alongwith ¾ share₹ measuring 1-10 bigha in Khasra No. 688/160 and 35/41 shares measuring 1-15 bigha in Khasra number 982/159. Khasra No. 982/159 is not subject matter of present suit.

¶61

Claim of the plaintiffs is that Chet Ram (grandfather of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1) was owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are children of one Palak Ram, who had expired prior to death of his father Chet Ram. Krishna Devi D/o Chet Ram was sister of

¶62

2025:HHC:20622

¶63

7

¶64

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶65

Palak Ram. According to plaintiffs Chet Ram had not executed any Will in favour of any body including defendant No. 1 Balbir. Devku Devi was wife of Chet Ram, who expired in the year 1998.

¶66

According to plaintiffs, suit land was to be inherited by Class-1 legal heirs of Chet Ram in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd each by Devku Devi wife of Chet Ram, Krishna Devi daughter of Chet Ram, and Palak Ram son of Chet Ram. Because Palak Ram had predeceased Chet Ram, therefore, his 1/3rd was to be devolved upon his children i.e. plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 1 in equal shares, i.e. 1/12 share each. But Hari Mohan and Krishna Devi procured false and fictitious Will alleged to be executed by Chet Ram on 30.3.1993, registered in the Office of Sub Registrar Solan, vide document No. 36, dated 31.3.1993 in their favour, depriving other legal heirs from the property in reference. Further that Hari Mohan also procured false and fictitious Will of Devku, and he succeeded in sanctioning mutation in his favour on the basis of alleged false and frivolous Will. It is further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan sold some property to other persons including defendant No. 3 Salochna.

¶67

According to plaintiffs, the Will alleged to be executed by Chet Ram was challenged by filing Civil Suit No. 84-1 of 2014, titled Balbir Singh Vs. Hari Mohan and others, but in view of compromise

¶68

2025:HHC:20622

¶69

8

¶70

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶71

arrived at between the parties on 11.6.2016 and 21.6.2016, the said suit was disposed of being not pressed.

¶72

It is further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 3 Salochna had entered into an agreement on 28.6.2016 with plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan wherein plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 had agreed to provide and had given possession of some portion of land to defendant No. 3 Salochna to facilitate her construction work and in turn defendant No. 3 Salochna had agreed to provide flats to plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 in the building to be constructed by her.

¶73

According to plaintiffs to deprive plaintiffs from their legal right to have share in the property, defendant No. 1 had transferred the land to defendant No. 3 and defendants No. 2 and 3, despite entering into compromise, have sold the property out of suit land to defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation vide sale deed dated 2264 of 2017, dated 21.11.2017.

¶74

In aforesaid facts, suit was filed alongwith application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure bearing CMA No.216 of 2023, wherein Trial Court (District Judge), though has observed that defendant No.4 cannot be deprived from use of the suit land despite having purchased it for sale consideration of 6,00,00,000/-₹ and spent ₹11,00,00,000/- in its construction and has permitted

¶75

2025:HHC:20622

¶76

9

¶77

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶78

defendant No. 4 to develop/raise constriction on the part of suit land, however has also ordered that in case plaintiffs succeeded in suit, then defendant No. 4 shall not claim any equity on account of development or construction raised by it and if suit is finally decreed in favour of plaintiffs, defendant No. 4 shall handover the suit land without any objection that it had raised construction on the suit land or developed the same.

¶79

Plaintiffs have preferred FAO No. 104 of 2024 against aforesaid order dated 20.11.2023 to the extent it permits defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation to develop or raise construction on the part of suit land.

¶80

Defendant No. 4 has filed FAO No. 155 of 2024 assailing the aforesaid order dated 20.1.2023 against the condition whereby in case of decree of suit in favour of plaintiffs, defendant No. 4 has been directed to handover the land to plaintiffs without any objection on the basis of development and construction raised on the suit land.

¶81

Plaintiffs’ case is based on agreements/compromises dated 11.6.2016, 21.6.2016 and 28.6.2016.

¶82

First Compromise dated 11.6.2016.

¶83

(A) This compromise is between plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, wherein some terms have been referred stated to have been agreed to be performed

¶84

2025:HHC:20622

¶85

10

¶86

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶87

by defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh, who is husband of defendant No. 3 Salochna.

¶88

(B) In this compromise, it has been stated that at that time i.e. on 11.6.2016 only 21 biswas of land was left in the name of defendant No.1 Hari Mohan in the revenue record and out of that defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan had agreed that he shall transfer 17 biswas of land in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and rest shall be kept by him in his own and his sons’ name.

¶89

(C) As per this compromise, defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh had agreed to give one set each consisting of two rooms set each to plaintiff Balbir in first floor and to defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan in ground floor with rider that plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan shall have no right, title or interest in the rights of defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh above these two rooms sets and land will also remain in the name of Randeep Singh.

¶90

(D) As per this compromise defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh had agreed to pay 1,00,000/- to plaintiff No. 1 Balbir₹ Singh.

¶91

(E) This compromise dated 11.6.2016 indicates that plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh had accepted selling of land other than

¶92

2025:HHC:20622

¶93

11

¶94

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶95

28.

¶96

the land referred in this compromise, by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan and others, because no question on the sale deeds of remaining land was raised in this compromise. Second Compromise dated 21.6.2016.

¶97

(A) This compromise was arrived at between plaintiffs Balbir Singh, Amar Dei and Asha Devi on one part and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan on the other part. In this compromise, as per recital thereof, parties had accepted that Chet Ram was original owner of the suit property with further statement that after death of Chet Ram, first party and second party i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were entitled to inherit the property in equal shares as legal heirs of Chet Ram because Chet Ram had not executed any Will in favour of any person.

¶98

(B) The attestation and sanctioning of mutation of the property of Chet Ram in favour of defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan was also admitted with further statement that plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, against defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan and Krishna Devi, challenging the Will alleged to have been executed by one Devku, before the Civil Judge (Junior

¶99

2025:HHC:20622

¶100

12

¶101

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶102

Divison) Solan, which was pending adjudication for 28.6.2016.

¶103

(C). In this agreement compromise was entered between plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 with respect to land measuring 21 biswas, stating that defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan was owner in possession of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 184/239, Khasra Nos. 1125/995/707/191 measuring 01-01-00 bighas, i.e. 21 biswas in Mauja Anji, Hadbast No. 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. and the remaining land was admitted to have been sold by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan which was to be inherited by the sons and daughters of Palak Ram in equal shares.

¶104

(D) As per this compromise defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan had agreed to transfer 17 biswas of land in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh within a period of two months from the date of compromise decree and remaining 4 biswas of land was to be kept in ownership and possession of defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.

¶105

(E) In this compromise property dispute involved in Civil Suit No. 84/1 of 2014, titled as Balbir Singh Vs. Hari Mohan, pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court

¶106

2025:HHC:20622

¶107

13

¶108

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶109

No.1, Solan was stated to be settled and compromised with undertaking of the plaintiffs to withdraw the said suit on 28.6.2016. Defendant No. 2 Randeep has been cited as a witness to this compromise.

¶110

29. Third agreement is dated 28.6.2016

¶111

(A) This agreement/compromise was entered into between defendant No. 4 Salochna wife of Randeep Singh (defendant No. 3) on one part and plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan on second part. As per this agreement defendant No. 3 Salochna was accepted to be owner in possession of landed property measuring 11-10 bighas situated at Mauja Anji, Haqdbast Number 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. with statement that she had purchased the same from defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan and some other persons of the area.

¶112

(B) As per this compromise defendant No. 3 Salochna was intending to construct multi storeyed building over the land owned by her in the shape of flats, however, the land sold by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan to her was in the middle of plot and, therefore, she was facing some difficulty and inconvenience to construct building over the land purchased by her and, therefore, she had requested

¶113

2025:HHC:20622

¶114

14

¶115

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶116

plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No.1 Hari Mohan to provide and give possession of such portion of land whereupon old ancestral house of second party was existing on the spot, whereupon, plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan had agreed to provide and give possession of land demanded by defendant No.3 Salochna with condition that defendant No.3 Salochna shall provide and sell two separate accommodation having two room set each, consisting of four rooms, having size of 10 x 10 feet each, two kitchens, having size of 10 x7 feet each and two bathrooms-cum-toilets, having size of 8 x 5 feet each in the building being constructed by her to the second party, i.e. one for plaintiff Balbir Singh and one for defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, Rohit and Vikas (both sons of Hari Mohan).

¶117

(C) Aforesaid flats were to be transferred by way of sale or gift by defendant No. 3 Salochna and expenses for execution and registration of sale deed/gift deed were to be born and paid by defendant No. 3 Salochna only.

¶118

Now plaintiffs’ case is that to deprive them from their legal rights and entitlement in terms of aforesaid compromises/agreements, defendant No. 3 Salochna has sold her entire land to defendant No. 4.

¶119

2025:HHC:20622

¶120

15

¶121

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶122

Therefore, claim of plaintiffs is that all defendants including defendant No. 4 are required to be restrained during pendency of the suit/alternatively to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land, so as to preserve the suit land to avoid any irreparable loss to the plaintiffs.

¶123

It is apt to record that in compromise/agreements dated 11.6.2016, 21.6.2016 and 28.6.2016, plaintiffs have not disputed or questioned the sale of land by Hari Mohan and others to defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh and/or defendant No. 3 Salochna, rather they had accepted the sale deeds of some suit land executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of others including defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh and/or defendant No. 3 Salochna and, claim, if any, in first two agreements/compromises was against defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, that too with respect to balance land of 21 biswas, which was in the name of Hari Mohan in the revenue papers and out of that plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh was satisfied alongwith other plaintiffs on transfer of 17 biswas of land in favour of plaintiff Balbir Singh by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.

¶124

It is apt to record that defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh, though, has been stated to have accepted the compromise dated 11.6.2016, but he has not been named as a party to the said compromise. The said compromise was between plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.

¶125

2025:HHC:20622

¶126

16

¶127

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶128

In any case even if defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh had accepted the said compromise dated 11.6.2016, then also as per this compromise he had to provide two sets of two rooms in his own land, one to defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan in Ground Floor and second to plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh in First Floor and he had also agreed to pay ₹1,00,000/- to plaintiff Balbir Singh.

¶129

This agreement dated 11.6.2016 nowhere creates any restriction upon defendant No. 3 Salochna, to sell the property/suit land purchased by her to defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation or some one else. Though acceptance of this agreement by defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh is yet to be proved, however, even if taken as it is, then also defendant No. 3 Salochna is not party to this compromise, who was owner of the suit land in her individual capacity.

¶130

Compromise dated 21.6.2016 also indicates that plaintiffs were not agitating against land sold by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan to defendant No. 3 Salochna or to some one else, but they entered into compromise with respect to left out 21 biswas of land which was in the name of defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, and compromise was entered to transfer 17 biswas out of the said left out land in favour of plaintiff Balbir Singh by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan and for such transfer, Civil Suit No. 84-1 of 2014 was agreed to be dismissed being not pressed in terms of compromise.

¶131

2025:HHC:20622

¶132

17

¶133

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶134

In agreement dated 21.6.2016 also there is no dispute about the sale of suit land by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan to defendant No. 3 Salochna or to some one else. It does not create any restriction to defendant No. 3 Salochna to sell suit land to defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation.

¶135

In agreement dated 28.6.2016 also selling of suit land by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan to defendant No. 3 Salochna or purchase of suit land by defendant No. 3 Salochna and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan from some other persons, is not disputed.

¶136

The subject matter of agreement dated 28.6.2016 is that defendant No. 3 Salochna was finding it difficult to raise construction unless plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 would have agreed to provide and give possession of portion of land whereupon their old ancestral house was existing and in lieu thereof defendant No. 3 Salochna had agreed to provide two separate accommodations having two rooms set, one each to plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.

¶137

There is nothing on record that defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation was and is in need of said portion of the suit land which is subject matter of compromise/agreement dated 28.6.2016 and whereupon old and ancestral house is located, for development of and raising construction on the suit land purchased by it.

¶138

2025:HHC:20622

¶139

18

¶140

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶141

In case defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is using such land in furtherance to agreement dated 28.6.2016, then definitely defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is bound and liable to comply with all terms and conditions of such agreement which include providing of two rooms sets one each to plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan of the description prescribed in the agreement referred supra. However, it is apt to record that there is no such recital in the plaint.

¶142

In any case, this issue, if pleaded and disputed, shall be decided by the Trial Court at appropriate stage on conclusion of Trial. As no such issue has been raised, at this stage, agreement dated 28.6.2016 is also having no bearing on the sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 Salochna in favour of defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation.

¶143

It has also been observed by the District Judge/Trial Court that plea of the plaintiffs that sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is illegal, fraudulent and void ab-initio, is yet to be proved, and under Section 60(2) of the Registration Act, there is presumption attached to the correctness of endorsement made on the document by Registering Officer and such presumption can be rebutted after leading evidence by the parties, and thus depriving defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation from using the suit land and by not allowing to raise construction thereon, despite having purchased the same for sale

¶144

2025:HHC:20622

¶145

19

¶146

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶147

consideration of ₹6,00,00,000/- and incurring expenditure of ₹11,00,00,000/- for construction, certainly would be causing irreparable harm and injury to defendant No. 4.

¶148

However, District Judge/Trial Court despite aforesaid observations, has ordered that in case suit is decreed finally in favour of plaintiffs, then defendant No. 4 shall handover the suit land without any objection for raising construction on the suit land or development made thereon, which, in given facts and circumstances, is unwarranted.

¶149

It is also apt to record that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and visualising the fate of the suit, plaintiffs, themselves, have made alternative prayer for damages from the defendants amounting to 1,00,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per₹ annum thereon, in case defendants fail to honour the compromises/agreements dated 11.6.2016, 21.6.2016 and 28.6.2016.

¶150

At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to observe that defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is not party to either of the aforesaid compromises/agreements. Further sale deed by defendant No. 3 Salochna to defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is not subject to any of the compromises including agreement dated 28.6.2016.

¶151

In any case, damages claimed by plaintiffs on account of act, conduct and deed of defendants have been quantified by plaintiffs to the tune of 1,00,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% thereon. Therefore,₹

¶152

2025:HHC:20622

¶153

20

¶154

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶155

it cannot be said in sticto senso that loss and damage, if any proved to have been caused to the plaintiffs, on action of defendants including defendant No. 4 cannot be calculated in terms of money or compensation and thus irreparable loss is going to be caused to the plaintiffs.

¶156

In aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that balance of convenience with respect to suit land purchased by defendant No. 4 lies in favour of defendant No. 4 and it will be defendant No.4, who will suffer irreparable loss on account of restraint order prohibiting it from raising construction or developing the suit land purchased by it. However, at the same time, to save the interest of all parties, though imposition of condition of handing over possession of suit land by defendant No. 4 to the plaintiffs may not be appropriate, however, the said issue has to be kept open to be decided by the Trial Court at appropriate stage after due appreciation of material on record in accordance with law. In case of finding fault on the part of defendant No. 4, it shall be liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages, if any, proved to have been caused on account of act and conduct of defendant No. 4 related to purchasing of portion of the suit land and developing the same. Accordingly defendant No. 4 shall be at liberty to maintain and deal with the suit property purchased by it in any manner including raising of construction and devolving the same, but such raising of construction and development of the land shall not be a ground for exonerating

¶157

2025:HHC:20622

¶158

21

¶159

FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024

¶160

defendant No. 4 from any liability if any fastened upon defendant No. 4 on conclusion of trial/legal proceedings in instant case.

¶161

However, defendant No. 4 shall not transfer, encumber or alienate the suit property or create any third party right thereon in any manner during pendency of the suit without leave of the Court.

¶162

Interim order passed by the Trial Court against the other defendants No. 1 to 3 qua remaining suit land, which has not been sold by Salochna and purchased by defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation, shall continue as such and they shall maintain status quo qua nature, possession and alienation of remaining suit land during pendency of the suit.

¶163

It is made clear that any observations made supra are only for disposal of present appeals, and shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case and respective stands of parties in the main suit.

¶164

Impugned order dated 20.1.2024 is modified and appeals are disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶165

Record be sent back immediately. Parties are directed to appeal before District Judge on 21.7.2025. No fresh notice shall be issued to the parties for next date fixed for appearance of parties before District Judge. Absence of either party shall invite adverse order.

¶166

(Vivek Singh Thakur), 1^st July, 2025 Judge. (Keshav)

Balbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Palak Ram v. Hari Mohan S/o Late Sh. Palak Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Palak Ram v. Hari Mohan S/o Late Sh. Palak Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupinder Pal S/o Sh. Nand Lal Vs Roshan Lal (Since Deceased Through Lr's)

Jagdish Tanta and others Vs Mohan Lal

Akshay Kumar and Another Vs Ashwani Kumar and Others

Surinder Chauhan Vs Jai Lal Bragta

Liberating Minds Foundation Vs Balbir Singh S/o late Sh. Palak Ram

Asha Kumari Vs Udho Ram Alias Udham