Allowed

Kulbir Singh v. Ghan Shyam Dass & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Oct 2009CR/574/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging injunction orders, the High Court quashed the below orders, directed parties to maintain status quo on possession, and ordered the trial court to decide the suit within three months, citing the suit's final stage.

What did the court decide?

The orders passed by the courts below are set aside. Parties shall maintain status quo. Trial court directed to decide suit within three months.

Kulbir Singh Vs Ghan Shyam Dass & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 574 of 2006

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 574 of 2006 Date of decision: 22^nd October,2009

Kulbir Singh

……Petitioner

Versus

Ghan Shyam Dass and others

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶11

Present: Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajive Bhalla, J(Oral)

¶12

The petitioner challenges orders dated 15.03.2005 and 21.11.2005, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri and the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, granting an injunction to the respondents and dismissing his appeal.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the suit land by way of a sale deed dated 6.10.2003. The sale deed contains a recital reflecting delivery of possession to the petitioner. The respondents on the other hand claim ownership on the basis of an oral sale deed or in alternative claim adverse possession. In view of these contradictory stand, the courts below should have dismissed the application for grant of an injunction. It is further submitted that the revenue record records that the respondents are in possession as gair marusi i.e. unauthorised occupant and therefore, the courts below should not have granted an injunction in their favour.

¶14

No one is present on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order. On 30.1.2006, this Court passed the following order:-

¶16

Civil Revision No. 574 of 2006

¶17

¶18

“Contends that the plaintiff is claiming sale on the basis of oral agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- which is not permissible in law.

¶19

Notice of motion for 3.4.2006. Respondents be also served through their counsel before the Trial Court. Process dasti as well.

¶20

The parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession, in the mean time.”

¶21

The trial court and also the appellate court have granted an injunction in favour of the respondents. The respondents assert ownership on the basis of an oral sale deed or in the alternative claim adverse possession. The petitioner on the other hand has purchased the suit land and claims to be in possession. As submitted by counsel for the petitioner, the suit is at its final stage. In this view of the matter, it would be inappropriate to vary the order dated 30.01.2006, at this belated stage.

¶22

As a result the revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the courts below are set aside and it is ordered that during the pendency of the suit, parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession.

¶23

The trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶24

[RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE

¶25

22^nd October, 2009 Shivani Kaushik

Kulbir Singh v. Ghan Shyam Dass & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulbir Singh v. Ghan Shyam Dass & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pohap Singh Vs H.U.D.A. Faridabad

Ram Singh and Ors. Vs Shashi Parkash Puri and Anr.

Shri Ram Vs Ram Chander and Anr.

Dilbagh Singh Vs Simarjeet Kaur

(O&M)Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana

Mahabir & or. Vs Satpal & or.