ALOK CHOPRA Vs. DILIP KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the first date of hearing it was recorded in the ex parte ad interim injunction Order that -"Farm land bearing No.4, Khuller Farm, Mandi Road, Sultan Pur, Mehrauli, Delhi-110 030 was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 by way of separate registered sale deeds. Thereafter, a building was constructed on the said land in 1984. The property is alleged to be held jointly. The plaintiffs are residing at the said property. It is contended that on 2nd August, 2003, some anti social elements along with truck loads of household material came to the farm stating that defendant No. 5 had purchased the share of defendants 1 to 3 in the said land and that they had come to obtain possession of portion in the farm house on behalf of defendant No.5. They refused to show any document of title. Local police was called. The plaintiffs are unable to ascertain as to whether the defendants 1 to 3 relinquished their rights in favour of defendant No.4 or any other person. The plaintiffs contend that they cannot be dispossessed otherwise in accordance with law as they have also a share in the farm land". Underlining has been added by me.

(2.) A reading of the Plaint discloses that the Prayer that has been made is for the passing of a decreefor permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, representatives, assignees and any person claiming on their behalf from entering into premises bearing No.4, Khullar Farms, Mandi Road, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi- 110 030. The imperatives of the Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC having not been complied with, although several hearings have already taken place. In separate proceedings the Plaintiffs have filed a Site Plan along with the Plaint, and their failure to do must be seen as deliberate. The Plaint mentions that the property was purchased by the father of the Plaintiffs and their sisters, namely, Late Shri Madan Mohan Chopra and that "none of the plaintiffs or the defendants had paid a single paise out of their separate individual accounts to wards the sale consideration for the sale deed executed in their favour". Paragraph 5 of the Plaint states that - "the Farm House was purchased by means of separate Sale Deeds, in the name of the plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 to 3" . My attention has been drawn to paragraph 11 of the Plaint but that also does not disclose the name of the person who is stated to have constructed the building. I have adverted to the proceedings since the Plaintiffs have attempted to set-up a plea of benami ownership against their sisters which, apart from the statutory, embargo would have been available only to their father.

(3.) The question that arises today is whether the interim injunction should be continued, which would depend inter alia on the Plaintiffs having succeeded in disclosing a prima facie case in their favour. Admittedly, the land in question comprises several khasra nos. of which khasra nos. 281 and 283 alone stand mutated in the name of the Plaintiffs. So far as khasra nos. 267, 272 and 273 are concerned, these were mutated in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 and subsequently, on the sale of their property to Defendants 4 and 5, these khasra nos. have now been mutated in their names. It appears that the Plaintiffs herein had filed a Suit in the District Court bearing No. 118/89 seeking a permanent injunction against Shri Nishant Singh Wadalia which has recently been disposed of. The Plaint contains the following pleadings in paragraph 11 :-