MAINPA Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dtd. 24/8/2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal (for brevity - Appellate Court), whereby appeal against order dtd. 12/5/2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal (for brevity - Trial Court) was allowed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the paper-book, are that the petitioners/defendants were recorded as owners in possession of the suit property (as mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint) in the revenue record. They sold the suit property to respondents/plaintiffs vide three sale deeds dtd. 31/5/2019, 9/7/2020 and 11/7/2019. So, the petitioners/ defendants were left with no concern with the suit property in any manner. However, at a later stage, the petitioners/defendants started interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property. When they did not stop despite repeated requests made by the respondents/ plaintiffs, an application for ad-interim injunction was moved by the respondents/plaintiffs for restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering into the lawful and peaceful possession of the respondents/ plaintiffs over the suit property. Vide order dtd. 12/5/2023, the learned Trial Court observed that though execution of sale deed qua the suit property has been admitted but handing over of possession of suit property is denied as complete payment of sale consideration was not made. Since both parties were claiming possession over the suit property, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the possession over the suit property. So, the application for ad-interim injunction was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the said order dtd. 12/5/2023 was allowed, thereby restraining petitioners/defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has argued that the learned Trial Court had ordered to maintain status quo qua possession of the land in dispute. Respondents/plaintiffs filed appeal against the said order, which was allowed vide order dtd. 24/8/2023 and petitioners/ defdendants have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property. Learned counsel has further argued that since respondents/plaintiffs failed to make full payment of the sale consideration, so the sale was not complete and possession of property was not handed over to respondents/plaintiffs. The Appellate Court has wrongly appreciated that there is an endorsement/writing on the back-side of the cheque mentioning therein that the cheque has been cancelled and cash amount has been received. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the said endorsement/writing has been obtained by playing fraud by the respondents/plaintiffs only to avoid payment of cheques. A complaint to police authorities was also made but no action has been taken. The possession of the land in dispute was never delivered to the respondents/ plaintiffs. Moreover, the petitioners/defendants have sold a share from the joint land. So, the possession of specific portion could not be given to the respondents/plaintiffs. The petitioners/defendants are still in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. Khasra Girdawari is also in the name of the petitioners/defendants. Actually, it is the respondents/plaintiffs who want to take forcible possession of the land in dispute without making full payment of the consideration. The petitioners/defendants have already filed a suit for recovery and in the alternate, for declaration of the sale deed in question to be null and void.