BALRAJ Vs. HARINDER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has arisen from an order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad dated 25.07.2009 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against order of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad dated 26.03.2007 by which plaintiffs' application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for short "CPC"] was dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts for disposal of the present revision petition are that the plaintiffs, namely Harinder, Dharmender, both sons of Govind Ram and Dayawati widow of Govind Ram, filed the present Suit No.402 on 20.11.2006 against Jai Pal, Chander alias Bhagat Ji, Rakam Singh, all sons of Dal Chand, Kartar, Balraj, both sons of Jai Pal and Gian Chand son of Ram Deva, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land falling in Khewat No.183, Khatauni No.288, Rect. No.9, Killa No.1/2(3-15), 2(8-0), 9/1(2- 3), total measuring 13 Kanals 18 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Sidhola, Tehsil and District Faridabad [for short "property in dispute"] on the ground that they are owners in possession of the said land by virtue of sale deed dated 27.05.2005. It was alleged that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, namely, Harinder and Dharmender both sons of Govind Ram, had purchased the property in dispute on 27.05.2005 vide sale deed bearing Vasika No.2875 from Gian Chand (defendant No.6) and Dayawati widow of Govind Ram had purchased leasehold rights from Gian Chand vide lease deed dated 27.05.2005 bearing Vasika No.2874. The names of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, who had purchased the property in dispute, were entered in the revenue record vide mutation Nos.996 and name of plaintiff No.3, who had purchased leasehold rights of the property in dispute, was entered in the revenue record vide mutation No.997.

(3.) As a matter of fact, as per the pleadings of the parties, defendant No.1 Jai Pal was the owner of the property in dispute. Defendant No.4 Kartar and defendant No.5 Balraj are his sons. Defendant No.1 executed a lease deed dated 19.07.2001 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Defendant No.1 sold the property in dispute to defendant No.6 (Gian Chand) vide registered sale deed dated 28.06.2004 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 sold their leasehold rights in favour of defendant No.6 vide registered lease deed dated 28.06.2004. Vide registered sale deed dated 27.05.2005, defendant No.6 sold his ownership right in the property in dispute to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, whereas defendant No.6 also sold leasehold rights to plaintiff No.3 on 27.05.2005. Sale deed and lease deed dated 28.06.2004 were mutated in favour of defendant No.6 vide mutation Nos.994 and 995 on 22.07.2005, whereas sale deed dated 27.05.2005 (in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2) and lease deed dated 27.05.2005 (in favour of plaintiff No.3) were mutated in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 vide mutation Nos.996 and 997 on 22.07.2005 respectively. However, vide its order dated 30.01.2006, the Collector, Faridabad set aside the mutation No.995 sanctioned in favour of defendant No.6. Defendant No.4 filed the Civil Suit No.685 of 18.08.2005 against defendant No.6 (Gian Chand) and defendant No.5 (Balraj) challenged the lease deed executed by him on 28.06.2004 in favour of defendant No.6. In the said Civil Suit No.685 of 18.08.2005 titled as 'Kartar Singh Vs. Gian Chand and another' defendant No.4 (plaintiff in the said suit) has prayed for decree for declaration to the effect that lease deed dated 28.06.2004 bearing Vasika No.3717 is null and void and does not create any right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.6 and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.6 from interfering in his peaceful possession. In the said suit, vide order dated 05.10.2005, the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. It is also pertinent to mention that in the said suit, an application dated 30.05.2006 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by Kartar/defendant No.4 for impleading Dayawati (plaintiff No.3) as a party. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 13.09.2008 i.e. after the order of injunction dated 05.10.2005. Balraj (defendant No.5) also filed the Civil Suit No.605 on 03.06.2005 against Gian Chand (defendant No.6) and Kartar (defendant No.4) seeking declaration to the effect that lease deed dated 28.06.2004, bearing Vasika No.3717 is null and void and does not create any right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.6 with regard to the suit property and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, ex- parte injunction was granted by the learned Trial Court on 09.06.2005 restraining Gian Chand (defendant No.1 in the said suit) from interfering in peaceful possession of Balraj/defendant No.5 (plaintiff in the said suit). It also requires to be pertinently noticed that plaintiff No.3 Dayawati was also impleaded as party in the said Civil Suit No.685 of 03.06.2005 vide order dated 16.10.2007 passed on the application dated 29.05.2007 filed by Balraj/defendant No.5 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.