JEETO Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -defendant No. 1 - Jeeto has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.8.2005 (Annexure P -1) and judgment dated 21.1.2008 (Annexure P -2) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala and learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar respectively, vide which application for grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by Joginder Singh -plaintiff -respondent No. 1 was allowed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the matter in controversy are that Joginder Singh plaintiff -respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.7.2001 regarding land measuring 25 kanals 4 marlas in revenue record described in the head note, as per jamabandi for the year 2001 -02 situated in Village Vanjanwala, District Amritsar and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs i.e. Rs. 1 lac as earnest money and Rs. 1 lac as damages, as stipulated in the agreement to sell with consequential relief of injunction restraining defendant No. 1 -petitioner -Jeeto from alienating the suit land by way of sale/mortgage etc., to defendants -proforma respondents 2 and 3 i.e. Sukhraj Kaur wife of Baz Singh and Baz Singh respectively or any other person except the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh and further restraining petitioner -defendant No. 1 Jeeto from dispossessing or interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh over the suit land till the final decision of the civil suit.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 -petitioner Jeeto filed written statement and took the plea that the suit is barred in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 27.7.2001, as the last date of execution of the sale deed was 15 Haari 2002 i.e. 6.7.2002. It was further alleged that plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh did not purchase any land on the basis of alleged agreement dated 19.9.2000. This agreement was neither cancelled nor adjusted. The alleged agreement to sell dated 27.7.2001 is a forged and fabricated document, prepared with the help of Deed Writer and witnesses. It is also alleged that no entry was made in the register of Deed Writer. Execution of the two sale deeds in favour of sons of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh, however, are admitted. It is further submitted that price of one acre of land in Village Vanjanwala is not less than Rs. 3.50 lacs as fixed by the Collector's rate. Harpreet Singh son of Baz Singh (defendant No. 3) is ready to pay Rs. 3.50 lacs per acre to defendant No. 1 -petitioner -Jeeto and agreement dated 14.6.2005 was also executed as earnest money and she is going to alienate the land in dispute in favour of Harpreet Singh and Dilbagh Singh. It is further stated that the alleged agreements dated 19.9.2000 and 27.7.2001 are vague, for less consideration and not clear. It is further alleged that agreement to sell does not create any right, title or interest in the property and no injunction can be granted. '