LACHMAN SINGH Vs. GIAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -plaintiff has challenged the order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure P/4) whereby the appeal of the respondents -defendants has been allowed and injunction granted by the trial Court has been vacated.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently argued that admittedly he is in possession of the property in question and therefore the Lower Appellate Court was not justified in vacating the injunction order. It is submitted that in the counter claim also the defendants have sought the relief that the goods left by the plaintiff in the plot in dispute should be picked up and also prayed for mesne profits. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs. and another, 2004 1 SCC 769 and Prithi Pal Singh and another Vs. Amrik Singh and others, 2013 9 SCC 576 and judgment of this Court in Hukam Singh Vs. Tara Singh, 1992 102 PunLR 331 to argue in support of the proposition.

(3.) THERE is no dispute regarding the proposition that a person in possession can only be dispossessed in accordance with law. However, one factor has to be taken into consideration is that person who approaches the Court with soiled hand is not to be granted relief of injunction. The present case is a classic case of concealment by the plaintiff. There is no dispute that sale deed dated 7.9.2011 (Annexure P/5) of 5 marlas of land in favour of Mandeep Singh, respondent no.2 was executed by the plaintiff himself and possession of the land was given to the purchaser on the spot. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit for permanent injunction against the said purchaser and his mother alleging that he was in possession of the property which he sold on the basis of sale deed dated 19.10.2004 to show that he has title of the property in question. Not a word was mentioned in the plaint that he had sold the land in question to respondent no.2/defendant no.2. When the defendants filed written statement and pleaded that they had purchased the property in question which had been sold by the plaintiff himself and he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ -, the plaintiff very cleverly filed an application for amendment of his suit and incorporated the relief that the sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 was result of fraud and misrepresentation in connivance with the Deed Writer and witnesses and was likely to be declared null and void. The consequential mutation in favour of defendant no.2 was also challenged by way of amendment which has been allowed and paragraph no.2 -A was allowed to be incorporated along with paragraph nos.8 -A and 8 -B. Thus, on the basis of this amendment made, the trial Court without noticing these facts granted the benefit of injunction on 19.10.2013 to the plaintiff. The appeal has now been allowed as noticed above.