DEVENDER KUMAR Vs. NAND ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this regular second appeal arises was for prohibitory and mandatory injunction whereby appellant -plaintiff had prayed for restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from interfering in his possession over the disputed plot and from alienating it to any other person or creating any charge over it and also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to transfer the ownership of the disputed plot in favour of plaintiff. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2013.

(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that plaintiff -Devender Kumar approached the Civil Court seeking a decree for prohibitory and mandatory injunction alleging that defendants No. 1 and 2 (Om Parkash son of Gopal Ram) purchased the disputed plot in an open auction, however, conveyance deed was not executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Meanwhile, defendants No. 1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,05,000/ - vide agreement to sell dated 14.02.2007. The entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff to defendants No. 1 and 2 and actual possession of the suit property was taken by him. A receipt was issued by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 and 2 completed all the formalities for getting the ownership of the disputed plot transferred in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the documents to defendant No. 3 to transfer the ownership in favour of plaintiff. When the defendants did not transfer the ownership of the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff despite repeated requests, it necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 3 filed separate written statement by taking preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action etc. On merits, it is averred that the disputed plot was given in auction to M/s. Nand Engineering Works whose proprietors have been shown as Nand Lal and Om Parkash. A request was made by allottees - defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 4 allegedly i.e. Om Parkash son of Bhajan Lal to enter their father's name in the allotment letter. Another application was also moved on 10.01.2008 alleging that the disputed plot had been sold to Anil Kumar son of Mool Raj and Harbhagwan son of Charan Dass. It was also deposed that they have no objection if suit property is transferred in favour of Anil Kumar son of Harbhagwan Dass. On 22.04.2008, defendant No. 1 tendered an affidavit before Municipal Council, Fatehabad declaring Om Parkash son of Bhajan Lal to be its business partner since 1986 and they had paid the total sale consideration along with interest to the answering defendant.