HARIBANDHU DAS Vs. ASHOKA INDUSTRIES P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 11-10-1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhu-baneswar in Misc. Case No. 504 of 1982 dismissing the appellant's petition for interim injunction sought against the present respondents 1 to 6. As this appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, the appellants had filed an application for condonation of delay which was allowed by Order No. 4 dated 23-3-1983. The appellants had also filed a petition for, ad interim injunction which was disallowed by the same order dated 23-3-1983.

(2.) Appellants 1 and 2 are plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively in O. S. No. 223/82-I filed in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. Appellant No. 2 is Indian National Congress at New Delhi and Appellant No. 1 claims to be the permanent working Secretary of the Congress appointed as such on 5th April, 1979 by the then President of the State Unit of the Congress. The suit has been filed against seventeen defendants of whom in this appeal defendants 1 to 6 are respondents 1 to 6 respectively, The suit land as described in the schedule appended to the plaint comprises of an area of A. O. 80 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 86, drawing No. C 3656 at Goutam Nagar, Bhubaneswar. The main prayers of the appellants in the suit are for a declaration that plaintiff No. 2 (the Indian National Congress) has permanent leasehold rights over, the suit land, recovery of possession of the suit land from defendants 1, 5 and 6, permanent injunction restraining defendants 1, 5 and 6 and their agents from making any further construction on the suit land or from using the building on the suit land as a hotel or for any other commercial purpose and for mandatory injunction with a direction to respondents 1, 5 and 6 to demolish the construction over the suit land or in the alternative to use the building on line suit land as 'Congress Bhawan'. The appellants' case may be briefly noted. In May, 1960 while respondent No. 2 was the Chief Minister of Orissa, the State of Orissa, respondent No. 3, granted a perpetual lease in respect of the suit land in favour of the Orissa Unit of the Congress, appellant No. 2. Upon deposit of the premium and the requisite consideration, the suit land was demarcated and possession was duly delivered by respondent No. 3 to appellant No. 2. Appellant No. 2 decided that a 'Congress Bhawan' would be constructed on the suit land to conduct and promote Gandhian activities to perpetuate the memory of the freedom fighters of this country. The then President of the All India Congress Committee laid the foundation stone of the 'Congress Bhawan' on the suit land on 16-5-1960. A registered deed of lease was executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of Swarajya Ashram Parichalana Samittee for the purpose of construction of the 'Congress Bhawan' and appellant No. 2 continued to possess the suit land through its agents and Committees. For various reasons, the 'Congress Bhawan' could not be constructed on the suit land. It is alleged that without any notice to the appellants and without compliance with the requirements of law, respondent No. 3 illegally determined the lease granted in favour of defendant No. 10 (Swarajya Ashram Parichalana Samittee) and resumed the suit land. According to the appellants, the resumption of the suit land and determination of the lease in respect thereof are illegal, invalid, null and void and that the appellants under law continue to be the lessees of the suit land. On 10-4-1971 respondent No. 3 executed a lease in respect of the suit land in favour of respondent No. 4, Prajatantra Prachar, Samittee, whose Chairman is respondent No. 2, for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. It is asserted that no rights have accrued in favour of respondent No. 4 by virtue of the lease dated 10-4-1971 and that the appellants continue to remain in possession of the suit land. On 18-6-1979 by two separate deeds of sale, respondent No. 2, who is the Chairman of Prajatantra Prachar Samittee (respondent No. 4), sold portions of the suit land to respondents 5 and 6. The remaining portion of the suit land was sold by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 by a deed of sale dated 16-5-1980. It is alleged that neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 4 had any right, title or interest in the suit land and therefore no right, title or interest was conveyed to respondents 1, 5 and 6 under the aforesaid deeds of sale. It is also alleged that the sale deeds are otherwise illegal and inoperative. According to the appellants, respondent No. 1 without proper authorisation, and permission as required under law started constructing a multi-storied hotel on the suit land and by the time the appellants filed the plaint in the Court below the building had been constructed up to the sixth floor. In these circumstances the appellants have prayed that interim injunction should be issued against the respondents restraining them from making any further construction over the suit land and from using the building over the suit land for the purpose of a hotel or for any other commercial purpose. It is noted in the impugned order that at the time of argument in the lower Court the prayer of the appellants with regard to injunction was confined by them to restraining the respondents and particularly respondent No. 1 from utilising the seven-storied building already constructed over the suit land for the purpose of running a hotel.

(3.) The State of Orissa, respondent No. 3, has in its counter denied the allegations made by the appellants. The maintainability of the suit and the locus standi of the appellants have been challenged. It is stated that no grant or lease of the suit plot was made by respondent No. 3 in favour of plaintiff No. 2 in May, 1960 or at any time. The suit land for the first time was leased out in favour of Swarajya Ashram Parichalana Samittee (respondent No. 10) on 3112-65 and the deed of lease was registered on 3-2-66. It is further asserted that the lease dated 10-4-71 granted by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 is valid, legal and binding.