Dismissed

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. v. Harminder Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2014CR/5342/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a civil revision alleging violation of Article 226. The Court analysed a dispute over land possession and sale deeds between relatives. Upholding lower courts' findings, the Judge dismissed the revision, maintaining the temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; the temporary injunction granted to the respondents/plaintiffs was upheld.

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. Vs Harminder Kaur and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Misc. No.20615-CII of 2014 and Civil Revision No.5342 of 2014 .....

¶3

Date of decision:11.9.2014

¶4

Ranjeet Singh and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

¶7

Harminder Kaur and others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶10

.....

¶11

Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

C.M. No.20615-CII of 2014:

¶14

For the averments made in the civil miscellaneous application, the documents attached with the criminal miscellaneous application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

¶16

C.R. No.5342 of 2014:

¶17

Ranjeet Singh etc.-petitioners/defendants have filed this civil revision petition against Harminder Kaur etc.-respondents/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior

¶18

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

C.R. No.5342 of 2014

¶20

[2]

¶21

Division), Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, vide which the ad-interim injunction application of the respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed and the order dated 2.5.2014 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

From the record, I find that the plaintiffs-Harminder Kaur etc. filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual, physical and peaceful cultivating possession of the plaintiffs over the land measuring 77 Kanals 17 Marlas and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was also filed along with the suit. The brief facts of the case are that initially Smt. Sushma, Anita and Smt. Renu daughters of Shri Chunni Lal were owners in possession of the suit land measuring 77 Kanals 17 Marlas on the basis of judgment and decree dated 24.9.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, in which the they had challenged the Will allegedly executed by Chunni Lal in favour of his wife Smt. Krishna Devi and on the basis of said judgment and decree mutation was also entered and sanctioned in favour of said Sushma etc. On the basis of said judgment and decree and mutation, said Sushma etc. had entered into the agreement to sell dated 27.8.2011 with Shri Atma Singh, husband of plaintiff No.1 and on the basis of said agreement to sell, the sale deeds dated 20.8.2013 were also executed and the possession of

¶24

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

C.R. No.5342 of 2014

¶26

[3]

¶27

the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs at the spot along with the crops standing on the suit land and since then the plaintiffs are in actual, physical and peaceful cultivating possession of the suit land as exclusive owners. The defendants have started threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs.

¶28

On the other hand the defendants' case is that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. It is also stated that the vendors of the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest to execute sale deeds in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that when the vendors of the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest to execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, then the alleged sale deeds are illegal, null and void and do not confer any right, title or interest on the plaintiffs. Moreover, since the vendors of the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property, the question of delivery of possession to the plaintiffs by their vendors does not arise at all. It is also the case of the defendants that they had purchased land measuring 75 Kanals 14 Marlas from Krishna Devi widow of Chunni Lal and the daughters of Krishna Devi have filed a civil suit, in which the Court vide order dated 24.9.2009 has held that her daughters are entitled to 3/5^th share of the property of their father Chunni Lal, meaning thereby the defendants are entitled for 2/5^th share i.e. share of Krishna Devi and her deceased son Sunil Kumar.

¶29

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, vide order dated 22.11.2013 held that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiffs

¶30

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

C.R. No.5342 of 2014

¶32

[4]

¶33

from Sushma etc. From a perusal of the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2009, it is clear that Will of Chunni Lal was set aside and subsequent transaction made by Krishna Devi on the basis of the Will were also set aside. The Court also held that on the basis of the judgment and decree Sushma etc. became owners of the aforesaid land. The above said judgment and decree was upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the basis of this judgment and decree, the execution was filed and possession was given to Sushma etc. on 20.7.2010 and Sushma etc. further sold the suit land to the present plaintiffs vide sale deeds dated 20.8.2013 and on the basis of it, the mutation has been entered and sanctioned in favour of the present plaintiffs, therefore, the Court held that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs-applicants. Balance of convenience also lies in their favour and if temporary injunction is not granted they will suffer irreparable loss and this application was accepted.

¶34

Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants/petitioners upholding the findings of the lower Court.

¶35

At the time of arguments before this Court, it is argued that in the judgment it is written that the sale deeds were valid only to the extent of share of Krishna Devi in the suit property. The learned Additional District Judge in the order dated 2.5.2014 also dealt with this point. The Court held that though in the body of the judgment it was held that sale deeds would be valid only to the extent of share of Krishna Devi in the suit property, but in the relief clause or in the decree there is no such

¶36

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶37

C.R. No.5342 of 2014

¶38

[5]

¶39

averment and this decree has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the applicants have no where made any attempt to get corrected the decree. Otherwise also, the total land was more than 109 Kanals as argued and even Krishna Devi at the time of passing of the judgment in earlier suit was owner of only 1/5^th share.

¶40

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that as the possession has been delivered to Sushma etc. as held by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, therefore, at this stage, in view of the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2009 the sale deeds executed on 20.8.2013 and in view of the possession taken through the execution proceedings, the plaintiffs have prima facie case in their favour. Balance of convenience also lies in their favour and if temporary injunction is not granted, they will suffer irreparable loss.

¶41

Therefore, from the above discussion, I find that the orders passed by the Courts below are correct and as per law which do not require any interference from this Court and the same are upheld.

¶42

Finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same is

¶43

dismissed.

¶44

September 11, 2014.

¶45

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶46

hsp

¶47

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. v. Harminder Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. v. Harminder Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs Vitnam Singh & Anrs

Raghbir Vs Ram Kumar and Others

Paras Cotspin Limited Vs M/S Mohit Enterprises

Swami Chetnanand Chela Swami Vikratanand Ji Maharaj Vs Rakesh Kumar Chopra

Gram Panchayat Village Maruli Brahmana Vs Shri Layalpur Sanatan Dharma High School

Rakesh Rai Vs Anju Rai