SARITA Vs. KAUSHALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this civil revision petition is for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, in a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, praying for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction qua the suit property, was dismissed as well as the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the lower appellate Court, vide which appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the aforesaid order of the Civil Court, was also dismissed.

(2.) The operative part of the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Civil Judge reads as under: - "...I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have gone through the contents of documents on record carefully. The plaintiff has requested to be granted an interim injunction claiming to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit property along with the performa defendant. Here, a reference must be made to sale deed bearing vasika No.1005 dated 13.10.2017 and 1253 dated 27.05.2016 vide which, the plaintiff, performa defendant had purchased the suit property. A bare reading of both the sale deeds shows that the plaintiff, performa defendant were sold only a share in the suit property. No specific portion of the suit property was ever sold to them. Mutations bearing No.864 dated 21.02.2018, 830 dated 13.07.2016 and 863 dated 21.02.2018 have also been perused which clearly show that only the share of the vendor had been sold to the plaintiff and performa defendant. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff and performa defendant are not in exclusive possession over any portion of the suit property and have failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour.

(3.) In nutshell, the case of the petitioner/plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that she along with performa defendant are owners in possession of land comprising in khasra No.11/2 min west (3-16), killa No.10/3/1 (1-3) total 04 kanal 19 marla, as the plaintiff and the performa defendant have purchased the same vide sale deeds dated 27.05.2016 and 13.10.2017. This was followed by sanctioning of mutation in their favour. The petitioner/plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1/contesting respondent No.1 has her property towards eastern side and she has started interfering in the possession of plaintiff and property of performa defendant by way of raising construction. Accordingly, a decree of mandatory injunction is prayed that defendant No.1 be directed to dismantle her illegal construction raised on the property of the plaintiff, as shown in red colour of the site plan attached with the plaint; vacate the same and deliver the actual vacant physical possession to plaintiff and to grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff or raising any construction in future.