RAJESH KUMAR Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. It has been alleged in the plaint that defendant No.2 Golden Projects Ltd. which was the owner of agricultural land described in para 2 of the plaint, authorized one Rakesh Kumar Arora as its representative to implement/effect the sale/transfer of the aforesaid land. He was further authorized to sale/transfer/dispose of the aforesaid land to any person and to sign all relevant documents on receipt of sale consideration. On 02.04.2003, Rakesh Kumar Arora entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid land to defendant No.1 Madan Lal for a consideration of Rs.50 lakhs and executed documents such as Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Receipt, Affidavit, Will and Possession Letter in his favour. Defendant No.1 Madan Lal agreed to sell 70 bighas 14 biswas of land out of the aforesaid land to one Sangeet Aggarwal vide Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will, Possession Letter and received the sale consideration from him. He sold 48 bighas 17 biswas out of Khasra No. 7/15/1 (3-16), 14/1 (3-16), 7/2 (2-8), 18/2 (2-1), 22/2 (3-8), 23(4-9), 5(2-16), 6(4-16), 3/2(1-19), 4(3-10), 7/1(2-8), 17 Min.(4-16), 24(4-16), 19(4-8) to the plaintiff and received the sale consideration. The plaintiff claims to be in actual physical possession of the aforesaid land as its owner. It has also been alleged that defendant No.2 became dishonest and passed a relation authorizing another person to deal with the aforesaid land. It has been further alleged that on 11.07.2007, a number of persons came to the land of the plaintiff and claimed to be its owner and expressed intention to fence the aforesaid land. Thereafter, two brokers approached the plaintiff and informed him that the suit land was available in market for sale by defendant No.2. The plaintiff has, therefore, sought a declaration that he is the lawful owner in possession of the suit land. He has also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and has further sought mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in his favour.

(2.) The defendants were proceeded ex-parte since they did not appear despite service on them.

(3.) The plaintiff has filed his own affidavit by way of ex-parte evidence in which he had supported on oath, the case set up in the plaint. He also stated that he was in possession of the suit land having purchased it from defendant No.1 Madan Lal by paying the entire sale consideration.