P K GUPTA Vs. MAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are the applications by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 (IA No. 120/2009) seeking restraint against the defendants or any of their agents, employees from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit property, land measuring 28 biswas in Khasra No. 711 min. situated at Village burari, Delhi-110084 and under Order XXXIX Rule 2a (IA 1427/2009) for violating the interim order dated 9th January, 2009 and dispossessing the plaintiff and therefore attaching the properties of the defendants and for imprisonment of defendants and the application under Order XXXIX rule 4 (IA No. 1118/2009) by the defendants seeking vacation of interim order dated 9th January, 2009 on the ground that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property nor he has been dispossessed and therefore vacating the interim order and dismissing the applications of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the above noted suit for permanent injunction contending inter alia that the plaintiff No. 1 is a senior citizen and he with plaintiff No. 2 had purchased the land measuring 28 biswas (1400 square yards)bearing Khasra No. 711 min. situated at village Burari in the year 1981 by two separate registered sale deeds. It is contended that the possession of the land was given to the plaintiff in 1981 and the plaintiff had constructed a wall with one small room for storage of building materials like bricks, badarpur, rodi, etc. Plaintiffs pleaded that the property was mutated in the name of plaintiff by order dated 9th December, 1981. It is asserted that the defendants are unnecessarily harassing the plaintiffs with a view to dispossess them and attempts were made on 30th July, 2008; 26th August, 2008 and 30th October, 2008. It is also contended that it has come to notice of the plaintiffs that defendants are joint khatedar in the agricultural land measuring 46 bighas, however, defendants have already sold their lands and plaintiffs had not purchased the land from the defendants who are the cousin brothers of the persons from whom the plaintiffs have purchased the land.

(3.) REGARDING the mutation of the property in the name of plaintiffs by order dated 9th December, 1981, it is further asserted that the said order was challenged in the first appeal before the Additional Collector, Shri R. K. Varma, who set aside the mutation and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The order dated 16th April, 1992 was challenged before the financial Commissioner and before the High Court, however, the order dated 16th april, 1992 has not been set aside and plaintiffs have applied for fresh mutation of land in their names which is pending before the competent court.