The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant against a temporary injunction order restraining him from interfering with the respondent's possession of disputed land during the pendency of a suit.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
: J U D G M E N T :
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.192/2013
Baljeet Singh Vs. Nirmal Singh
Date of Order
18th February, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. Bheem Kant Vyas, for the appellant. Mr. J.R. Beniwal Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.L. Choudhary, for the respondent.
BY THE COURT:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2012, whereby, an injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff, whereby, the appellant has been restrained from interfering in possession, mortgage or sale and has been directed to maintain status quo regarding land in question.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Nirmal Singh filed a suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sale dated 09.07.2001 against Avtar Singh and Baljeet Singh-appellant with the averments that on execution of the agreement to sale the possession of the land in question was handed over to them and they had paid a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the vendor Avtar Singh and only balance consideration of Rs.36,400/- is to be paid. It was then stated that it has come to their notice that the
2
land in question has been transferred in favour of Baljeet Singh and, therefore, the said transfer on face of the agreement to sale dated 09.07.2001 was illegal and the same was required to be set aside.
Alongwith the suit an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed seeking restraint against Baljeet Singh only from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and not to further transfer the said property.
It appears that during the pendency of the said application seeking temporary injunction, the property in question was further sold by Baljeet Singh to one Arvinder Singh by registered sale deed dated 16.11.2012. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by said Arvinder Singh has been rejected by the trial court. It is stated that writ petition against the said order rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is pending before this Court.
It is also noticed that statement of Avtar Singh was recorded under Order 10 CPC by the trial court and he has stated that the sale deed has been got executed by the appellant Baljeet Singh on account of fraud.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order impugned passed by the trial court is without any basis, inasmuch as, once this fact has come on record that the property in question already stands sold by the appellant, there was no occasion for passing any injunction. It was further contended that the suit essentially was filed against Avtar Singh,
3
however, without impleading him as a party, the application has been filed seeking injunction against the appellant only, which was not maintainable. It was further submitted that despite pendency of the application, the sale executed by the appellant in favour of Arvinder Singh is not null and void and, therefore, no injunction could have been issued in the case. It was further submitted that in any case the trial court should have directed for payment of compensation as the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the conduct of the appellant is such that he is not entitled to seek any relief from this Court. Despite pendency of the suit and temporary injunction application, the property in question has been transferred. The respondent herein is in possession of the property in question and an injunction against appellant has rightly been issued not to interfere with their possession.
I have considered rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record. The order impugned does not call for any interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Admittedly, the property in question has already been sold by the appellant Baljeet Singh by a registered sale deed in favour of Arvinder Singh on 16.11.2012 and any right, title or interest which he had in the said property has already come to an end. The case of the appellant even otherwise is that he is in possession of the suit property and, in those circumstances, the
4
appellant cannot have any grievance whatsoever against the order impugned, which has been passed by the trial court.
Even otherwise, the conduct of the appellant is such that he is not entitled to seek any indulgence from this Court, inasmuch as, despite pendency of the temporary injunction application, the appellant has taken it upon himself to frustrate the injunction application, such conduct cannot be encouraged.
So far as contentions raised by the appellant that though the land in question has been sold by him still he has been injected by the trial court is concerned, in this regard, suffice it to state that it is not necessary that only a person who is owner of the property in question can alone be injected, if plaintiff still have grievance and/or apprehension that the appellant can interfere in their possession, it is open for the Court to grant an injunction.
So far as the prayer relating to putting conditions on the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the property since 2001 and merely because the appellant decides to take upon himself to get a sale deed executed in his favour and then transfer the said property, then that cannot be a reason enough to put the plaintiff on terms.
In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
A.K.Chouhan/- 59
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order granting injunction against an appellant who has already sold the subject property during pendency calls for interference.
Whether maintenance of injunction is necessary when the appellant has transferred his interest to a third party.
Baljeet Singh
Nirmal Singh
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
