MANOHAR SINGH Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an impugned order dated 19th April 1994 allowing an appeal and dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and reversing the order dated 23rd May 1992 restraining the defendants Ram Chander and others and their agents from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land.

(2.) According to the case of the plaintiff/petitioners, 17 biswas land in khasra in actual physical possession of Budha s/o in actual physical possession of Budha s/o Shravan. He expired leaving behind his tow sons Ram Phal and Prem Chand. His two sons also expired leaving behind Panna Devi and Dewan Kaur. They purchased this land from the legal heirs of Budha, i.e. his the behest of the daughters-in-law of Budha on the behest of the daughters-in-law of Budha on Agreement to Sell. They both executed Power of Attorney dated 28th March 1990 but the plaintiffs claim that they are in possession and occupation since 1989. The possession had been duly recorded on 31st March 1992 when the plaintiffs/petitioners started raising a boundary wall around the suit land. On 4th April 1992, defendants/respondents along with their associates came at the suit land and threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the suit land and even defendants also caused obstructions/hinderance in the construction of boundary wall around the suit land. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have no legal right, title or interest in the suit land and as such police report was lodged in the PS Anand vihar. Since the threats given by defendants and their agents are still continuing, this suit for permanent injunction along with this application was filed.

(3.) The defendants/respondents contested the suit as well as the application by raising a number of preliminary objections, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit for they are neither in possessionn or have any legal right in the suit property.Defendants claim to be in possession for the last more than 50 years, since the time of their predecessor-in-interest Ram Sahai. The suit was barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. It was neither properly valued for the purpose of court fee nor for the purpose of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs/petitioners have not approached the court with clean hands. The recorded owner of this property Mandir Sitaram has not been impleaded as a necessary party. They denied the delegation of title and possession of the plaintiffs.