BRAHM SINGH Vs. K P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs in respect of a plot of land bearing No.66, situated at E.P.D.P. Colony, near Kalkaji, New Delhi. The plaintiffs have sought for a decree of permanent injunction in their favour and against the defendants No.1 and 2 from selling and/or alienating/conveying and/or disposing of the suit property to the defendant No.3 or any other person with a further relief that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs and also from dispossessing plaintiffs by any means whatsoever.

(2.) It is stated that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. They also claim to be in possession of the suit property. It is stated that the ancestors of the plaintiffs acquired the suit property from the original owner, late Shri K.M. Talukdar vide agreement to sell dated 7th February, 1975, accompanied with a Power of Attorney, an affidavit and the Will of the deceased. It is also stated that the possession of the plot was delivered to the ancestors of the plaintiffs on 7th February, 1975, that is on the date when the aforesaid documents were executed. It is alleged that on 20th October, 1996, while the plaintiffs were at the site of the suit property, the defendant No.3 came there and he reported that he is negotiating for the purchase of the suit property from the defendants No.1 and 2. The aforesaid information submitted by the defendant No.3 came as a surprise and shock to the plaintiffs. Immediately thereafter the plaintiffs also came across a notice published in a local daily on 24th October, 1996 at the instance of the defendant No.3 indicating his intention to purchase the suit property from the defendants No.1 and 2, In order to protect the rights and interests of the plaintiffs in the suit property, the present suit was filed seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) While issuing summons, an ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs directing that if any transfer is made by the defendants, that would be subject to the decision of the suit. The defendant No.3 was served by ordinary process and he filed his written statement contesting the suit. The defendant No.1 was also served by ordinary process. However, the defendant No.2 could not be served through the ordinary process and accordingly it was ordered that the said defendant No.2 could be served through the substituted manner. Accordingly, a publication was taken out in terms of which the defendant No.2 also stood served. However, none appeared either on behalf of the defendant No.1 or on behalf of the defendant No.2, nor any written statement was filed on their behalf and accordingly the suit was ordered to be proceeded ex parte as against the said defendants No.1 and 2.