SWARAN SINGH Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Swaran Singh (hereinafter described as the plaintiff) has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain the defendant, his employees, agents and representatives from dispossessing the plaintiff or interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the Farmhouse, known as Randhawa Farms, measuring 40/570 share, 100/570 share in the land 6 bighas 11 biswas forming part of Khasra No.259/2, situated in village Rangpuri, New Delhi and also, in respect of 5 bighas of agricultural land, forming part of Khasra No.259/2, 823/2, 1229, 1274 and 1278 purchased from Shri Neel Kamal, situated in Village Malikpur Kohi alias Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts alleged are that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land and the super-structure referred to above. The plaintiff is also the attorney of Om Prakash with respect to 5 bighas of land, which is forming part of premises referred to above. Since the time the plaintiff took over the possession of the land, major developments work for transferring the land into a farmhouse was done by the plaintiff, The plaintiff had employed a number of persons for maintenance and other development of the said plot. The defendant was stated to be attempting to dispossess the plaintiff of the property through illegal means and forcible take possession of the same. On 9/8/1998 when plaintiff was away from Delhi, two persons were sent by the defendant, who came to the farmhouse and ordered the employees working therein to vacate the land. The plaintiff lodged a report. Thereafter on 28/1/2001 when the plaintiff was out of Delhi, defendant with certain persons came and forcibly entered the farmhouse and threatened the security guard of the plaintiff. The security guard had informed the plaintiff, who in turn had informed the police. Asserting that the plaintiff is the ' owner in possession, the present suit with the abovesaid relief, already mentioned, has been filed.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, an application had been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I.A.No.1948/2001), seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents or employees from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. In the reply filed, the defendant denies the assertions of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. Khasra No.259/2 was stated to be Joint and undivided holding, belonging to the parties who are co-owners thereto. It is denied that it is the execlusive property of the plaintiff. It was even denied that plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the same. In fact, the claim of the plaintiff was stated to be with respect to 5 bighas of agricultural land in Khasra No.259/2, 823, 824, 1229, 1274 and 1278. Khasra No.259/2 was alleged to be situated at a distance of at least 3 Kms. from the said place. So far as other khasra numbers except Khasra No.259/2 are concerned, the defendant was stated to be not claiming any right; title or interest in the same. The plaintiff was stated to have concealed the true facts and so far as Khasra No.823, 824. 1229, 1274 and 1278 are concerned, it was asserted that a declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued. The Acquisition Collector had made an award with respect to these khasra numbers and the same had been acquired by the government. Even these facts have been suppressed. It was denied that the plaintiff was running any farmhouse therein.