RAMCHARAN MANSHA Vs. BADRI PRASAD KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/appellants are aggrieved by the order of the trial Court rejecting their prayer for the grant of an ad interim injunction.

(2.) THE facts in so far as relevant for the disposal of this appeal may briefly be stated. There is a registered deed of sale dated 22-12-1973 in respect of the suit land, executed in favour of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs claim that the sale-deed was a nominal one and a prohibited transaction of loan within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). Relying on the deed of sale, the defendant No. 1 filed a suit for permanent preventive injunction seeking to protect his possession over the land which was registered as C. O. S. No. 301-A/83 in the Court of Vth Civil Judge Class I. Gwalior, wherein a prayer for grant of an ad interim injunction was refused and so the defendant No. 1 got his suit dismissed in default of appearance on 19-4-1989. The plaintiff/appellants have initiated proceedings under the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer for setting aside the sale. During the pendency of those proceedings they also filed the Civil Suit seeking a declaration that the deed of sale was in reality a transaction of loan which did not have the effect of vesting any title in the defendant No. 1 and a permanent preventive injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/appellants.

(3.) THE plaintiff/appellants have averred that in spite of the impugned sale-deed having been executed in the year 1973, they have always continued to remain in possession of the land in suit. They prayed for the grant of an ad interim injunction also so as to protect their possession during the pendency of the suit. This prayer was seriously contested by the defendant/respondent. The trial Court passed an ex parte order on 30-1-1990 protecting the possession of the plaintiff/appellants. On noticing the defendant/respondents and after hearing them, vide the impugned order, the trial Court formed an opinion that inasmuch as the S. D. O. was seized of the proceedings under the Act, who was empowered to set aside the sale and consequently restore the possession of the land to the holder of the land, the plaintiff/appellants were free to approach the S. D. O. for the desired relief. On this short reasoning, the trial Court held that it was not necessary to hear on merits the application Under Order 39. Rules 1/2. Civil Proceudre Code. It directed the ex parte injunction dated 30-1-1990 to be vacated.