BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. RANA KAMARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order Civil Revision Nos. 4296 and 4297 of 1995 are decided as common facts are involved in both the cases.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner-Bhupinder Singh filed Civil Suit No. 177 of 1994 against Rana Kamarpal Singh for permanent injunction praying that the defendant be restrained from interfering into his lawful and peaceful possession of the disputed land measuring 4 Kanals 17 Marias (referred to as suit land) as described in the plaint itself. He alleged that he through his maternal uncle and Manager Rajpal purchased the suit land from Jang Bahadur Singh and Achhar Singh for Rs. 36,500/- vide registered sale deed dated April 5, 1994. Possession of the suit land was delivered to him on that very day. Mutation is also sanctioned in his favour. His vendors were in exclusive possession of the suit land at the spot as co-owners/co-sharers irrespective of the wrong revenue entries contrary to it. The defendant started threatening to forcibly dispossess him. Hence he filed this suit and also filed petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for granting ad interim injunction to that effect.

(3.) THE trial Court considered the allegations as well as the documents filed by the parties and came to the conclusion that not only in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff there is a recital that possession of the suit land is delivered to the purchaser but also mutation was effected in his favour and in the copy of Jamabandi in remark column there is an entry in respect of this sale in favour of plaintiff Bhupinder Singh. It also observed that simply agreement of sale of immoveable property does not by itself create any interest in or charge on any property and the defendant's right, if at all he has any in the suit land shall arise after decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated June 2, 1992, is passed in his favour and it is executed. The trial Court also observed that the defendant could not show that plaintiff Bhupinder Singh had notice of this alleged agreement of sale at the time when the sale deed was executed in his favour. Jang Bahadur Singh and Achhar Singh in their affidavits have supported the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the order of ad interim injunction dated May 17, 1994 was confirmed by Order dated August 24, 1994.