RAMESHWAR Vs. BADRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff who has lost from both the Courts below has taken the shelter of this Court by filing this appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) A suit for injunction has been filed by plaintiff on the averments that he bought the suit property which is agricultural land and description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint, from Badrilal vide registered sale-deed dated 5-10-1989 and obtained the possession of the suit property. On 13-6-1990 when the plaintiff was not in the village, the defendants No. 2 and 3 by taking help of 10-12 antisocial elements ran over the tractor on the crop which was sown by the plaintiff and a report in the police station was also lodged to that effect and therefore basing this date to be a cause of action since defendants tried to interfere into his possession, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against his vendor Badrilal arraying him as defendant No. 1 as well as his wife Sumanbai as defendant No. 2 and against one Hiralal also as defendant No. 3.

(3.) The Vendor Badrilal did not file written statement, although he was arrayed as defendant No. 1. The defendants No. 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement and pleaded that Badrilal is a drunkard and is also not having his mental equilibrium. He is also a gambler and happens to spare his time among the antisocial elements. It has been further pleaded in the written statement by these defendants that plaintiff was having domain over defendant No. 1 and by providing him liquor, the sale-deed was got executed but infact the suit property is still in possession of the defendants. According to them, the consideration was never paid to defendant No. 1 Badrilal.