JOGENDER SINGH Vs. MUNNI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for prohibitory injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed a suit for injunction on the premise that he is owner in possession of 5/48 shares i.e. 7 kanals 19 marlas of land comprised in Khewat No. 320 khatoni No. 427/428 kitte 10 total measuring 76 kanals 12 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1998 -99 situated at village Mundhal Khurd, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. He entered into an agreement to purchase the said land from Yudhbir Singh respondent No. 3 vide agreement to sell dated 04.03.2004 for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ - per acre and paid an amount of Rs. 90,000/ - as earnest money to the vendor in the presence of Mahender Chaudhary, deed writer and witnesses put their signatures on the receipt. The date for registration of the sale deed was fixed as 15.09.2004. This fact was well within the knowledge of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 has also given possession of the suit land to the appellant after harvesting the crops of Rabbi 2004.

(3.) On the basis of agreement to sell dated 04.03.2004, respondent No. 3 had executed sale deed dated 10.09.2004 in favour of the appellant and received balance sale consideration of Rs. 89,000/ -. The appellant is in possession of suit land and the respondents have no concern whatsoever with the suit land. Respondent No. 3, in order to cause loss to the appellant sold the suit land in favour of respondent No. 1 vide registered sale deed No. 5284 dated 27.08.2004. The sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the appellant as respondent No. 3 had already entered into an agreement to sell the suit land in favour of the appellant and had also received an amount of Rs. 90,000/ - towards earnest money. Respondent No. 3 had no right to execute the sale deed No. 5285 dated 27.08.2004 in favour of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 was owner in possession of total land measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas but he has executed the sale deed dated 27.08.2004 regarding 160/1532 share of the land measuring 76 kanals 12 marlas i.e. 8 kanals 9 marlas. Respondent No. 1 has got sanctioned mutation No. 2797 dated 20.10.1994 in her favour which is also wrong and not binding on the rights of the appellant.