SUCHA SINGH AND ORS Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs are before this Court challenging the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the Respondent-Defendant against the interim stay granted by the learned trial court in a suit filed by the Petitioners for declaration and injunction claiming right on the property left by their mother. The trial court had granted injunction in favour of the Petitioners restraining the Respondent-Defendant from interfering into the possession of the Petitioners-Plaintiffs over 201 kanals 3 marlas land and one residential house in Village Kariwali as detailed in the plaint. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court while reversing the order passed by the learned trial court directed Tehsildar, Rania to take possession of the property in dispute, harvest the crop and lease out the same by way of open auction and deposit the money so received in the court. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the mother of the Petitioners, namely Kartar Kaur, expired on 26.8.2008. The property was inherited by her from her ancestors. The Petitioners were in possession of the property before the death of her mother and even after the death and in the residential house two of the Petitioners, i.e., sons of deceased Kartar Kaur, were stated to be living. Inspite of the fact that sufficient material was produced on record by the Petitioners and they were found to be in actual physical possession and findings to this effect have also been recorded by the learned trial court but the learned Lower Appellate Court without reversing the findings regarding the possession of the property, directed Tehsildar, Rania, to take immediate possession of the property in question, while observing that the property in dispute is more than 25 acres and is worth Rs. 5 crores and there is likelihood of fatal-fued between the parties which may claim lives of the parties. Tehsildar, Rania, who was appointed as Receiver, was directed to take possession of the property immediately, harvest the crop and deposit the sale proceeds in the trial court as early as possible and thereafter give the suit land on lease on year to year basis, in open auction and deposit the lease money with the trial court. It was further directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Tehsildar, Rania, through special messenger for strict compliance.

(3.) Referring the aforesaid observations, it was submitted that there was no reason before the court to have directed the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the property from the persons who were in established possession thereof since long. Further the observation of the court regarding sending the copy of the order by way of special messenger and harvesting the crop immediately was with a view to frustrate the rights of the Petitioners to challenge the order further before this Court. The Respondent-Defendant in the present case is claiming himself to be the nephew of deceased Kartar Kaur. It was further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners the speed at which the entire proceedings have taken place and that too after passing of the interim order by this Court on 7.4.2010 granting status quo regarding possession of the property clearly shows that there is much more than what is evident to the naked eyes. The statement of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that possession of the property was, in fact, not taken from them before the order was passed by this Court. He merely got the order of the District Judge noted down from the Petitioners and thereafter entire proceedings were recorded at their back. It was merely paper transaction. In fact, the crop was also harvested on 15.4.2010 as is recorded in the Rapat Roznamcha. The factum of harvesting of crop on 15.4.2010 is also evident from form 'J' that it was sold through a katcha artia at Rania which happened on 15.4.2010. In fact the residual after harvesting the crop was sold by way of a public auction on 15.4.2010. All this is recorded in Rapat Roznamcha which clearly establishes the fact that after the passing of the interim order by this Court, the Tehsilar had taken the proceedings clearly in defiance to the status quo order.