NIRMAL Vs. LAKHPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 29.3.1997, Smt. Nirmal wife of Mange Ram filed suit for specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction against Lakhpat Singh son of Chet Ram, Smt. Kalawati widow of Bhim Singh and her sons Yudhvir Singh, Girraj Singh, Tejvir Singh and Nand Kishore, on the allegations, that Smt. Kalawati is the owner in possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 34 kanal 17 marla situated in the revenue estate of village Saran as detailed in para 1 of the plaint. Smt. Kalawati entered into an agreement of sale on 13.12.1995 qua land measuring 12 kanal 6 marla out of the aforesaid land measuring 34 kanal 17 marla being owner in possession of the land by virtue of civil Court decrees dated 20.7.1982 and 6.8.1982 with her (Nirmal) for a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 4 lacs per acre. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dated 13.12.1995, sale deed was to be executed and registered upto 30.3.1997 on receipt of the balance sale consideration. Smt. Kalawati received Rs. 50,000/- at the time of execution of the said agreement of sale as an advance. She further received Rs. 30,000/- as part payment on 19.4.1996 against receipt. Kalawati thus received Rs. 80,000/- from her in all. On 5.3.1997, Nirmal went to the house of Kalawati defendant and requested her to be ready to execute sale deed in her favour in pursuance of the said agreement on 30.3.1997 as stipulated in that agreement. Kalawati put her off on one pretext or the other. She came to know that land measuring 12 kanal 6 marla which was the subject matter of the agreement of sale was being transferred by Kalawati in favour of her sons Yudhvir Singh and others in collusion with her sons. With that thing in view, her sons filed suit against her for declaration titled Tejvir Singh and others v. Smt. Kalawati in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad on 10.3.1997. Nirmal made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded in that suit. That suit was withdrawn by Tejvir Singh and others on 12.3.1997. Kalawati deviated from honouring that agreement in collusion with her sons and sold land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla out of the land detailed in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint (it may be mentioned here that in para 2 of the plaint, she has described the land she had agreed to be sold to her vide agreement dated 13.12.1995) vide registered sale deed dated - 13/14.3.1997 for Rs. 4,44,000/- to defendant No. 1 Lakhpat Singh. She has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. Sale deed dated 13/14.3.1997 in respect of the land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla is illegal, null and void, inoperative so far as her rights are concerned. After the execution of the agreement of sale dated 13.3.1995, Kalawati also executed/registered 3 sale deed dated 19.4.1996 with regard to area measuring 62, 75 and 74 square yards for a sum of Rs. 52,750/-. She also executed/registered 3 sale deeds to different persons respecting area measuring 64, 64 and 580 square yards on 23.7.1996 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard for a total sum of Rs. 1,77,000/- through her general power of attorney Smt. Nemawati wife of Joginder Singh with the consent/in consultation with the plaintiff. Smt. Kalawati has received a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,29,750/- in the presence of the plaintiff and the general power of attorney Smt. Nemawati. In this manner, Kalawati has transferred/alienated 919 square yards i.e. 1 kanal 10-1/2 marlas of land with the consent of the plaintiff and 7 kanal 2 marlas to Lakhpat Singh on 13/14.3.1997 without the knowledge and notice of the plaintiff, as such, sale deed dated 13/14.3.1997 is not binding on the rights/interests of the plaintiff. She is entitled to enforce the contract/agreement dated 13.3.1995 qua the remaining land measuring 10 kanal 15-1/2 marla including 7 kanal 2 marla sold to Lakhpat Singh defendant on payment of the remaining sale money @ Rs. 4 lacs per acre. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff made an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC for the grant of temporary injunction restraining Lakhpat Singh and others defendants 1 to 5 from alienating suit property i.e. 10 kanal 15-1/2 marla of land which includes land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla sold to Lakhpat Singh defendant.

(2.) VIDE order dated 19.5.1998, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad declined the grant of temporary injunction so far as land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla purchased by Lakhpat Singh defendant is concerned. Temporary injunction was granted restraining Kalawati and others defendants from alienating the remaining land. It was also mentioned that in case the suit property is alienated during the pendency of the suit, the principle of lis pendens shall be applicable on the party alienating the suit property. Smt. Nirmal (plaintiff) went in appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 16.11.1998. Still not satisfied, Smt. Nirmal has come up in revision to this Court whereby she has prayed that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC be allowed in toto and temporary injunction be granted restraining the defendants-respondents from further alienating the land in dispute.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that if Lakhpat Singh and others are allowed to alienate land measuring 10 kanal 15-1/2 marla during the pendency of the suit, that would give rise to multiplicity of litigation if Lakhpat Singh and others alienate land measuring 10 kanal 15-1/2 marla, that would be in breach of agreement dated 13.12.1995 and also Smt. Nirmal will have to bring suits against the alienees from them with a view to get back that land from them. It was submitted that the equities of the case and the interest of justice demand the grant of such temporary injunction and if such temporary injunction is not granted, people can run away with impunity and refuse to perform the agreement solemnly entered by them. It was submitted that the property should be preserved as it is.