DALIP SINGH & ORS. Vs. DALIPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for grant of ad -interim injunction has arisen under the following circumstances. The plaintiff -Respondent Dalipo filed the present suit for declaration that the consent decree came into being as a result of fraud having been played upon her and that she is the owner of the disputed land which was given on lease by her to the defendants. The suit was fought by the appellant primarily on the ground that they were owners before the passing of the consent decree on account of their being in adverse possession of the disputed land and they had never given any Batai to the plaintiff -respondent Dalipo. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been reversed meaning thereby that plaintiff -respondent has been declared to be owner of disputed land. The regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been admitted. At the time of admitting the appeal, the injunction as claimed that the plaintiff -respondent be restrained from interfering with the possession of the defendant -appellant. This Court while granting injunction, issued notice to the plaintiff -Respondent. Upon appearance having been put in, this Court heard the application for injunction.

(2.) At the time of hearing the counsel for the parties, some facts have remained undisputed: It is not disputed that the appellants are in possession of the disputed land. It has been pleaded by the defendant -appellants in the written statement that they did not give anything by way of Batai to the plaintiff -respondent, meaning thereby that it is the case of the appellants themselves that they are enjoying the possession of the disputed land without giving anything to the plaintiff -respondent. In view thereof it is necessary and in the interest of justice that the appellants should be put to terms. If the appellants wants to enjoy the possession of the disputed land, they must pay cash security in the sum of Rs.750/ - per acre annually.

(3.) In view thereof, it is ordered that the injunction granted by this Court earlier would continue and remain in operation provided the appellants deposit cash security in the sum of Rs.750/ - per acre annually before the trial Court. The cash security for the year 1990 -91 would be paid on or before 31.10.1990. Similarly, the cash security at the aforesaid rate would be deposited on or before 31st of October every year. The money deposited shall be withdrawn by the respondent on her furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. No costs.