PUNEEET SHARMA Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN BANSAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before this court is a plaintiff in a suit for injunction wherein he has sought the decree of permanent injunction in relation to the property, more particularly, defined in the foot of the plaint, which constitutes Khasra Nos. 163, 166, 243 & 244 having a total area of 1456 sq. yards surrounded by the boundaries as given in the relief clause of the suit itself. The suit in question accompanied an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2.

(2.) The basis of the claim for grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit, as agitated by the plaintiff/appellant before the court below was that an agreement for sale has been executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of the appellant, though he admits the fact that the agreement for sale which was executed on 15.6.2006 in his favour was an unregistered agreement for sale. On scrutiny of the agreement of sale dated 15.6.2006, yet again it is revealed that the agreement for sale does not disclose any fact about handing over of possession to the plaintiff.

(3.) On the other hand, the arguments as extended by Mr. B.C. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant is that he has questioned the title of the defendant (respondent herein) on the ground that the defendant, was claiming the right over the property by virtue of the registered gift deed, executed by the attorney holder of the principal owner of the property, on the ground that gift deed could not have been executed under the strength of attorney, because of the restrictions imposed by Section 152 A of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, the attorney holder suffered from the vices of the restrictions imposed by Section 171, 173, 174 & 175 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. The fact remains and it is also admitted by the plaintiff/appellant before this court that the gift deed as executed in favour of the defendants (respondents herein) was a registered piece of document. By virtue of the gift deed, name of the defendants admittedly have been recorded in the revenue records.