SATYAWATI CHAUDHARY Vs. O P NANGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, an interim application was moved for the purpose of interim stay in respect of the injunction granted by the learned single Judge We find that the questions covered by the interim application arc almost identical with the questions covered by the appeal. Having heard arguments on the interim application, we think the appeal can also be decided in the same terms. So, the appeal and the interim application are being decided together by this order.

(2.) The learned single Judge had granted the injunction to restrain the making of construction on the plot in question. This injunction was granted because the case of the plaintiff is that the land on which the defendant Shri Subash Chand is in the process of constructing the building is the land belonging to the plaintiff as a result of a sale deed executed on 27th September, 1985. The case of the said defendant, on the other hand,is that he had purchased that land by an deed dated 1st March, 1986. It so happens that the sale deed in favour of Shri Subhash Chand was executed by Smt.Satya Waiti Chaudhry wife of Ch.Braham Parkash on the footing that she was the owner of the laid. On the other hand, sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has been executed by a power-of-attorney-holder of Ch. Braham Parkash. The case of the plaintiff is that this is in furtherance of a very old agreement to sell whereby there was a scheme for developing land belonging to the husband and wife which was put at the disposal of a firm called the Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd., who in turn entered into various agreements whereby the plots were to be transferred to various persons. The case of the plaintiff is that he had paid for this land in 1966 and the sale deed executed in his favour by the power of attorney holder was in furtherance of this scheme.

(3.) The case of both the parties turn on which of these sale deeds is effective. It may be that the sale deed in favour of Subhash Cband is ineffective because the land in question never belonged to Smt. Satyawati. On the other hand, the sale deed would be effective if the land did belong to her. Similarly, the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff would be effective if the land belonged to Ch. Braham Parkash and not to his wife Smt. Satya Wati. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states before us that even if the land d'd not belong to Ch. Braham Parkash he would be entitled to get the possession. But this to our mind is not a question which we have to decide at this stage. It is sufficient to say that both the parties have arguable case and will be determined on the facts eventually found in the suit. We are not really to decide about the suit at this stage. We have to make provision for the possible result in the suit and to see what is to happen to the property during the pendency of the suit.