KALI PRASAD PANDEY Vs. IIND A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 29.5.2004 and 27.2.2004, passed by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 3 not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioners over the suit property so far as it relates to Gata No. 324, Area 2.415 Hectare situate in village Kuerha Keshavpur, Thesil Sadar, District Faizabad and also not to change the nature of the suit property until disposal of the Regular Suit No. 672 of 2003 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faizabad.

(2.) I have heard Shri Prashant Chandra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.C. Mukherjee, Advocate for the opposite party No. 3 the caveator.

(3.) In short the facts of the case are that the petitioners claim themselves to be owners in possession of the disputed land. They had agreed to sell the disputed land by executing an agreement to sell. In the agreement the sale consideration was shown as Rs. 17 lacs. While according to the petitioners the agreed sale consideration was Rs. 24 lacs. According to the petitioners, they were paid Rs. 7 lacs through different cheques at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and the amount of Rs. 17 lacs was shown as sale consideration in order to save the stamp duty. The execution of the agreement is admitted. According to the opposite party No. 3, the total sale consideration was Rs. 17 lacs as mentioned in the agreement out which Rs. 8 lacs was given as an advance. The agreement is a registered document. Since there is a dispute about the sale consideration, the petitioners filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction from taking possession and raising constructions and from cutting trees standing over the land, which is the subject matter of the agreement against the opposite party No. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners moved an application for ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., which was dismissed, vide order dated 27.2.2004. The petitioners preferred a Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 2004 which was dismissed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad vide judgment and order dated 29.5.2004 (Annexure-1).