GAYATRI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2019, whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the third respondent (plaintiff of Original Suit No.46 of 2018) and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. While passing the order of status quo, the appellate court has recorded finding with regard to possession of the entire suit property in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit against Gayatri Devi, the original petitioner (since dead and now represented by her heirs and legal representatives), for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining her from interfering in his exclusive possession of the suit property which is stated to be in shape of a house alongwith the open land and tin shed. Gayatri Devi was the real sister of the plaintiff-respondent. According to the admitted case of the parties, the suit land was purchased jointly by them by a sale deed dated 6.2.1979 (registered on 12.3.1979). It is also admitted to the parties that both of them had half share in the said property. According to the plaintiff-respondent, he purchased half share of his sister Gayatri Devi for Rs.50000/-, evidenced by a sale deed-cum-receipt dated 5.1.2006. It is on the basis of this sale deed-cum-receipt that the plaintiff-respondent claimed exclusive title and possession over the entire suit property. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement contending that the alleged sale deed-cum-receipt is a forged document; she never entered into any such transaction nor ever received any money for transfer of her share in favour of the plaintiff; that she reposed great faith in her brother; that the constructions were raised over the suit land with the joint funds of the parties; and that she still has half share in the suit property. The trial court, after considering the entire facts of the case, rejected the application for temporary injunction, by order dated 12.2.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-respondent filed appeal which has been allowed by impugned order dated 31.5.2019.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashish Agarwal submitted that the appellate court committed a grave error of law in placing reliance upon receipt-cum-sale deed dated 5.1.2006. It is submitted that the said receipt-cum-sale deed is inadmissible in evidence and moreover the share of the petitioner, which admittedly had a value of more than Rs.100/- could not stand transferred thereby. He further pointed out that initially the plaintiff-respondent filed the original document dated 5.1.2006 and on its strength succeeded in obtaining exparte ad interim injunction. Soon thereafter he filed application dated 29.3.2018 for return of original document on the pretext that it is required for taking loan. The trial court, without examining whether the document is required to be impounded or not, proceeded to pass order for return of the document subject to filing of a certified copy thereof. The plaintiff-respondent did not file certified copy of the said document nor he could had done so as it was not a registered deed. He substituted the original document with a copy thereof, attested by public notary. As soon as the petitioner entered appearance, she raised specific objection that the receipt-cum-sale deed dated 5.1.2006 is a forged document and it did not bear her signature. She requested the trial court to direct the plaintiffs to file the original document. The application filed in this regard was allowed by the trial court by order dated 11.7.2018. However, the plaintiff-respondent came up with a new story on the next date and alleged that while he was coming to the court alongwith the original document, it was stolen and he expressed his inability to place on record the original document. The petitioner also filed a first information report levelling charge of forgery and in which, the police after investigation, has submitted a charge sheet. It is further submitted that the appellate court, without examining whether the plaintiff-respondent, on the basis of said receipt-cum-sale deed can claim exclusive title, proceeded to grant injunction. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is co-owner of the suit property, therefore, she will be deemed to be in joint possession of every inch of the suit property.