SUTIKSHANKUMAR SINGH Vs. PUSHPAKUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

(2.) The brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that the suit property, measuring 560 Sq. yards was purchased by Smt. Vrindavani Devi through a registered sale deed on 5.11.1962. She is said to have executed a registered gift deed (Hiba) on 16.5.1964 in favour of Aligarh Janhit Bhawan Nirman Sehkari Samiti Ltd. Aligarh, (hereinafter referred to as the Society) to which Sri R.K. Sharma, her son is said to be an attesting witness. The plaintiff/appellant claims herself to be a member of the aforesaid Society. She is said to have been allotted the suit land on 5.2.1978 for Rs. 39,220.00 . It is alleged that after the death of Smt. Vrindavani Devi her two sons and daughters did not get any right in the suit land, however, the defendant/respondent claimed to have purchased the suit land on 9.5.2012 from the two sons and daughter of Late Smt. Vrindavani Devi and on the basis thereof it is stated that defendant/respondent started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/appellant. This compelled the plaintiff/appellant to institute suit no. 1996 of 2012 in October, 2012, in which the trial court exparte restrained the defendant/respondent from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/appellant, except in accordance with law. After hearing parties counsel application for interim injunction of the plaintiff/appellant was rejected on merits vide order dated 1.12.2012 holding that the sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent being a registered document can not be disbelieved at this stage.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the face of it, the sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent is void document as Smt. Vrindavani Devi had already gifted the said land to the predecessor-in- interest of plaintiff/appellant vide registered gift deed dated 16.5.1964 and, therefore, she had no right interest or title thereon. The appellant has challenged this order dated 1.12.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2, Aligarh in O.S. No. 1996 of 2012, Sutikshan Kumar Singh Vs. Pushpa Kumar Garg and others. Learned counsel for the appellant pryas for the relief of quashing the impugned order and judgment aforesaid in the aforesaid suit and allow application no. 7 Ga-2 in favour of the appellant.