NARINDER KAUR Vs. DALER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that agreement dated 15.2.1999 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of which the defendant-respondent agreed to sell the suit land measuring 44 Kanals 9 Marlas for a consideration of Rs.6 Lacs. Rs.50,000/- is stated to have been paid as earnest money to the respondent. The sale deed was to be executed on 29.10.1999 after receipt of balance amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. The petitioner alleges that she went to the office of the Sub- Registrar on 29.10.1999 and complied with the necessary formalities. However, the respondent did not turn up to get the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner again went to the office of Sub- Registrar on 2.11.1999. However, the respondent did not turn up. Thereafter, the petitioner filed civil suit on 8.5.2001 for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement. Along with the suit an application was filed seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land to anybody whatsoever and from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit land. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure-P.2). The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 4.3.2004 (Annexure-P.1). The petitioner assails the said orders dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking ad interim injunction.

(2.) Mr. Des Raj Mahajan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Additional District Judge committed a grave error in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner inasmuch as the counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent had made a statement that the plaintiff-petitioner is in possession of the suit land and that the defendantrespondent would take possession of the suit land in due course of law. In view of the said statement, it is contended that the appeal of the petitioner was liable to be allowed. It is further contended that the question regarding restraint from alienating the suit land has neither been considered nor dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge. Therefore, it is contended that the learned Additional District Judge has gravely erred in passing the impugned order and that the ad interim injunction is liable to be granted in favour of the petitioner with regard to possession as well as alienation of the suit land.

(3.) In response, Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the petitioner in fact has committed a grave fraud on the respondent and the proceedings being initiated by him are an abuse of the process of the Court. It is contended that the respondent Daler Kaur is the widow of Joginder Singh. In fact, Joginder Singh had another brother Amrik Singh, whose widow is Jagjit Kaur. Both the brothers, who are sons of Jiwan Singh, are dead and the suit land has been inherited by Daler Kaur (respondent) and Jagjit Kaur widow of Amrik Singh, the brother of the husband of the respondent. It is contended that after the demise of the respective husbands of the respondent and Jagjit Kaur, they filed a civil suit on 14.8.1993 seeking possession of the suit land. In that suit the petitioner and her husband Gurpinder Singh, who has since died, set up a Will of Jiwan Singh, the father of Joginder Singh and Amrik Singh even though they had no concern with him. The said Will was not accepted by the Courts and the suit filed by the respondent and Jagjit Kaur widow of Amrik Singh was decreed in their favour by the trial Court on 9.9.1996. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the District Judge, Gurdaspur which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur on 29.1.1999. It is after the dismissal of the appeal on 29.1.1999 that the petitioner has set up an agreement to sell dated 15.2.1999 which, it is contended, is absolutely a false, fake and a fabricated document. In any case, Daler Kaur (respondent) could not have entered into an agreement on behalf of Jagjit Kaur widow of Amrik Singh as she has no authority on her behalf. The suit land, it is contended, is admittedly not in possession of the respondent. However, the possession would be taken in accordance with law in execution of the decree dated 9.9.1996 which has been affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur on 29.1.1999. In the circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of restraint regarding alienation of the land by the respondent and in any case the principle of lis pendens would apply in case any alienation is made.