RAJU BABU Vs. DEEN DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 2750/1998 (0. 39, R. 2 & 2), 4703/1998 (0. 39, R. 4) The plaintiff had instituted the suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the property bearing No. 9, Bhogal Lane, Jangpura, New Delhi. An ex parte order dated 27.3.1998 was obtained by the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property. The plaintiff in the suit claimed to be the co-owner of the property in question with defendant No. 4. Written statement in the. case has been filed. Counsel for the defendant No. 1 in Annexure A to the written statement has given the detailed history, as to how the grand father of the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in respect of the premises in question on 30.10.1956. There is also a chequered history of plaintiff's father having instituted a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 30.10.1956 was illegal and nullity and of no consequence. The said Suit No. 372/1969 was dismissed. So was the appeal against it. There have Seen several rounds of litigation leading ultimately in the plaintiff's father being unsuccessful upto the Apex Court. It is not necessary for me to recapitulate the details set out in Annexure 'B' because the learned Counsel for the plaintiff very fairly concedes that the same are correct. The case of the defendant is that it was in the year 1956 that the plaintiffs father became a tenant and Continued to pay the rent upto September, 1962 @ Rs. 40.00 per month. A suit for recovery was also instituted by defendant No. 1, which was eventually decreed. Appeals were filed by the plaintiff's father, which were dismissed. The matter reached the Apex Court also. An eviction petition had also been preferred by defendant No. 1 against the father of the plaintiff. An eviction order was passed, which was confirmed in appeal and an execution application was also filed. Counsel for the defendants contend, at this stage, that with a view to settle the long standing litigation, the plaintiff received substantial amount and handed over possession of the premises in question. The defendant No. 1 in turn let out the property to defendant No. 2, who is a Jeweller. From the foregoing narration of facts/the question of plaintiff's ownership in the property does not survive

(2.) Learned Counsel for the plaintiff contends that despite the ex parte injunction in his favour in this suit, plaintiff was wrongfully dispossessed of the property on 28.3.1998. Defendant No.' 2, whom defendant No. 1 inducted as a tenant, instituted a suit in which injunction was granted for maintaining status quo. It is urged that in the garb of the injunction order, plaintiff was dispossessed.

(3.) From the foregoing, it is the admitted position that the plaintiff is not in possession and has failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. The plaintiff has failed to prima facie show any right to continue with the occupation of premises. Plaintiff's case of being owner has been found to be false. Plaintiff concealed the factum of the litigation material facts while seeking equitable relief of injunction. The suit for injunction itself has become infructuous and does not survive. If it is the plaintiff's case that he hasbeen wrongly dispossessed from the property, it would be open for him to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law with regard thereto.