HIRALAL Vs. VIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT /defendant has directed this revision against the order dated 6.8.1999 passed by the District Judge, Rajgarh in C.M.A. 10/99 thereby reversing the order dated 23.6.1999 passed by the trial Court refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the non-applicant no. 1 plaintiff under O. 39 R. 1,2 CPC. The appellate Court by the impugned order allowed the application filed on behalf of the non-applicant no. 1 plaintiff under O. 39 R. 1, 2 CPC and restrained applicant and other defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff on the suit lands.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that - Respondent No. 1 plaintiff Vikramsingh filed a suit against the applicant and the other defendants for specific performance of the contract in the Court of Civil Judge, CI. I, Khilchipur, District Rajgarh on the basis of an agreement dated 3.4.1993 executed between the parties. It is alleged that the applicant by the aforesaid agreement agreed to sell the agricultural land situated in village Bajron Tahsil Khilchipur bearing Survey No. 612 area 0.380 hectares to non-applicant no. 1 Vikramsingh after receiving consideration of Rs. 29,250/-. It is also alleged that in compliance of the aforesaid agreement on 3.4.1993, the applicant also delivered possession of the suit land to respondent Vikramsingh. It is alleged that after execution of the alleged agreement and the delivery of the possession of the suit lands, the applicant taking advantage of entries of his name in the revenue papers, tried to dispossess respondent-plaintiff from the suit lands. As such, a suit for specific performance of the contract and injunction was filed before the trial Court. The respondent/plaintiff along with his plaint, filed an application under O. 39 R. 1,2 CPC for grant of injunction in his favour restraining applicant/defendant from interfering in his possession with regard to the suit lands. The application was contested on behalf of the applicant. The trial Court by order dated 23.6.1999, rejected the application filed on behalf of the non-applicant/plaintiff but in appeal against said order of the trial Court, filed on behalf of the non-applicant/plaintiffs, was allowed by the appellate Court and by the impugned order, the temporary injunction was issued against applicant restraining him from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the agreement dated 3.4.1993, as also the affidavits of plaintiffs Vikramsingh, Purilal and Narsingh, who are the attesting witnesses of agreement dated 3.4.1993, it is prima-facie established that the applicant entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to non-applicant plaintiff Vikramsingh for Rs.29,250/- and after receiving the said consideration, he delivered possession of the suit lands to the non-applicant/plaintiffs and from the date of the said agreement, non-applicant/plaintiff was found in possession of the said lands.