OM PARTAP Vs. CHUHRIA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 21st October, 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, vide which, the learned Judge accepted the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 27th July, 1996.

(2.) Plaintiff Om Parkash and another had filed a suit on the pleadings that defendant No. 1 owns agricultural land measuring 33 kanals 2 marlas as described in the plaint. The said land was mortgaged with possession by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 jointly. Thus, plaintiff prayed for grant of an injunction that the said defendant No. 1 be re -strained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs or forcibly dispossessing them from the property in dispute, particularly without redeeming the mortgaged property. The suit was contested by the defendants, who stated that mortgage deed was signed only by defendant No. 2 and the suit was collusively filed by plaintiffs and defendant No. 2. The mortgage deed was allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 who got the name of the plaintiff entered thereupon. Defendant No. 1 had paid Rs. 20,000/ - as mortgaged money to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 had signed the receipt in token of receipt of the said money and made endorsement in the original mortgage deed itself and, as such, the suit was not maintainable, as possession of the suit land had already been delivered to defendant No. 1.

(3.) Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad -interim injunction. This application was allowed by the learned trial court, vide order dated 27.7.1996, wherein the court restrained the defendant No. 1 from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. However, the said order, as already noticed, was set aside by the learned first appellate court.