This civil revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application for injunction by lower courts. The High Court rejected the plea, holding that the petitioner was not the owner of the disputed land and lacked clean hands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Civil Revision No.7141 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7141 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 19.01.2011
Sarup Singh Thakran
...... Petitioner
VERSUS
Ramesh Chandra and another
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
A.N.JINDAL, J:
Having lost in both the Courts below to seek the injunction against the respondents, Sarup Singh petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') has come up in revision.
The plaintiff has claimed that he is co-owner in possession of the agricultural land to the extent of 4 kanals out of which he entered into a collaboration agreement on 14.01.2004 with the respondents-defendants (herein referred as 'the defendants'). However, he remained in possession of the remaining two kanals of the land. Therefore, he sought injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the said two kanals of land during the pendency of the suit.
The defendants appeared and filed the written statement and reply to the application wherein they took some preliminary objections. Besides, they also submitted on merits that the plaintiff alongwith his associates was the co-owner in possession of the land, as mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint, as well as the other land. Consequently, he alongwith his
Civil Revision No.7141 of 2010 2
associates had approached M/s Rhino Holding Private Limited to develop their land by obtaining licence. The plaintiff and his associates had stated that they did not have the finances, expertise and know how to develop their land while the said company was a well known developer. They had assured that they would be very honest and fair in their dealings with the company and they would abide by all the commitments agreed upon and their representation to be correct, the said company entered into a collaboration agreement dated 14.01.2004 with them. The plaintiffs and his associates received refundable security deposit in terms of the said collaboration agreement. As per terms and conditions of the said agreement, the plaintiff and his associations also executed separate registered general power of attorneys in favour of the said company/ its official i.e. defendant No.2 and also executed separate Wills regarding the land subject matter of the collaboration agreement which included the suit land. The plaintiffs and their associates were not interested in obtaining 10% of the developed area as originally envisaged in the collaboration agreement. Rather they agreed that they would receive the entire sale consideration regarding their land and refundable security amount, already received by them, may be treated as a part of the sale consideration. As such, the Company while acting upon the aforesaid agreement, got registered the sale deed Nos.17639 dated 03.12.2004 executed on behalf of Ramchander and Jitender regarding 26 kanals land for the consideration of Rs.1,78,75,000/-, 17669 dated 03.12.2004 executed on behalf of Rama and Tara Chand for Rs.59,29,686 regarding 8 kanals 12.5 marlas and 17660 dated 03.12.2004 regarding 13 kanals executed on behalf of the plaintiff for Rs.89,37,499/-. Ultimately, the Company having been in exclusive
Civil Revision No.7141 of 2010 3
possession of the entire land including the land of the plaintiff, started dealing with the same. Plaintiff is not in possession of any part of the land.
The trial Court, after hearing the arguments on the application for injunction, declined to grant any injunction. His appeal was also dismissed.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
The record reveals that the plaintiff entered into a collaboration agreement with the defendants. He had also executed a Will in favour of the Company. Perusal of the sale deeds, executed in favour of defendants, depict that the possession of the said land had been delivered to the defendants. The records further reveal that prior to the collaboration agreement, the land was under acquisition and the defendants had got it released after the agreement. The rapat Nos.1084 and 1088 indicate the delivery of possession of the suit land to the defendants. The khasragirdawaris from 2006 to 2010 indicate that the land is lying vacant. It is also well settled by now that the possession of the vacant land would follow the ownership. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not the owner of two kanals of land (i.e. land in dispute), therefore, he cannot be said to be in possession over the same. Apart from the plaintiff, his brothers had also executed general power of attorney in favour of Ajay Chandra-defendant No.2 and on the basis of said power of attorney, sale deeds pertaining to their shares had already been executed in favour of the respondents. The brothers of the petitioner are silent to challenge qua their shares whereas he alone has come forward. The plaintiff has not denied the factum of having received the amount of sale consideration which is revealed from his account, copy of which has been filed by the respondents. Now the petitioner-plaintiff has
Civil Revision No.7141 of 2010
4
tried to create confusion by taking advantage of the entries in the revenue record, the value of which has been discussed in the proceeding paras. As per the said record, the petitioner cannot get any benefit of the entries and claim possession over the same. Both the Courts below, while elaborating the facts and the arguments, as advanced by him, passed a reasoned order and no illegality could be found therein to form a different opinion than what was expressed by the Courts below. The petitioner, having not come with clean hands, is not entitled to any such discretionary relief of injunction.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is
dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
19.01.2011 mamta-II
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to injunction against respondents when he lacks clean hands and is not the owner of the disputed land.
Sarup Singh Thakran
Ramesh Chandra
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
