DEEPIKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a criminal revision against the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate datedJuly8, 1992 and August 5, 1992 where by proceedings undersection 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ' the Code') were initiated and sealing of the part of the premises bearing No.734, Shora Kothi, Subzi Mandi, Delhi was also directed.

(2.) . The revision petition has been filed with the following allegations: The property, bone of contention between the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 4, which is a part of a big katra, comprises of two rooms on the ground floor with an open verandah in front thereof. The petitioners are also residing in diffferent portions of the katra. Earlier Parvati Devi and her sons including Krishan Lal Sindhi, their wives and children were also living in the property in dispute. Some years back Parvati Devi and her son Krishan Lal Sindhi started a lucky draw scheme and made the petitioners and some other people as members of the same. The petitioners were regularly paying money to Parvati Devi and her son for the aforesaid scheme. After sometime Parvati Devi and Kishan Lal stopped the draws and failed to make return payments to the petitioners with the result that a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs became due and payable by former to the latter. Not being able to meet the demands of the petitioners for payment the family of Parvati Devi left the premises and locked the property in dispute. On March 30, 1992 Parvati and her son Krishan Lal are said to have requested the petitioners to allow them to remove their belongings from the property in question. The petitioners acceded to their request on the condition that Parvati Devi and Krishan Lal would make the requisite payment to the petitioners within 15 days failing which the defaulters would hand over the possession of the property to the petitioners and the arrangement would be treated as an agreement to sell the property to the petitioners and the consideration for the sale would be the amount which Smt. Parvati Devi and Krishan Lal were liable to pay to the petitioners. The defaulters agreed to the proposal and also gave their consent to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the petitioners in the event of their not being able to fulfil the promise to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs within 15 days from March 30,1992. Parvati Devi and Krishan Lal failed to make the payment of the dues within the stipulated period with the result that the agreement between the parties was required to be treated as an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioners. Contrary to the expectations of the petitioners, Parvati Devi executed a sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No.2 Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, wife of Shri Som Parkash on April 10,1992. It is further alleged that Som Parkash approached the petitioners and informed them that the property had been purchased by his wife and the possession of the same should be handed over to him alongwith the keys of the same. The petitioners refused to oblige Som Parkash as the property stood vested in them under an oral agreement dated March 30, 1993. It is also alleged that Som Parkash visited the property and tried to break open the locks but his efforts did not fructify and the petitioners are said to have lodged areport on May 1,1992 for the said intrusion. According to the petitioners the property in dispute was converted into a Mandir, where puja was being performed regularly and even Bhagwati Jagran took place on May 17,1992.

(3.) . It is not disputed that respondent No.2 herein brought a suit for permanent injunction against some of the petitioners for restraining them from interfering with her possession, inter alia on the grounds: that respondent No.2 is in possession of the property; that she had purchased the same from Parvati Devi by registered sale deed dated April 10,1992; that earlier her husband Som Parkash was a tenant in the same property with effect from February 1, 1992 at a rental of Rs.60.00 per month; and that the property was being used for residential cum commercial purposes. In the written statement, the petitioners berein, inter alia, averred that they were in possession of the property since March 30,1992 and Som Parkash was trying to take forcible possession from them. On May 12, 1992 the learned Sub Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo.