RAM KISHAN Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 22. 2. 1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant and has set aside the order dated 7. 2. 1996 passed by the learned trial court by which the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was allowed and the respondent- defendants were restrained from raising construction on the suit land.

(2.) IN the present case the petitioners-ptemtiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking the relief that the respondents-defendants be restrained from raising construction as the land in dispute was joint ownership of the- parties and has not yet been partitioned by metes and bounds. Along with the suit the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 7. 2. 1996 accepted the application of the plaintiffs under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the respondents-defendants from raising construction over specific portion of the suit property which was even in their exclusive possession, till partition was effected by the competent authority in accordance with law. The aforesaid order dated 7. 2. 1996 was, however, set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide his order dated 1. 2. 1996. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the plaintiffs themselves have sold their shares in the suit property to different persons vide sale deeds dated 25. 2. 1997, 3. 4. 1997 and 18. 9. 1997 and as such the plaintiffs cannot be granted any injunction against the defendants from raising the construction on the portion of the land which was in their exclusive possession. It is, however, not disputed that the parties were the joint owner of the suit land and though the order with regard to partition of the land has been passed by the revenue authorities but the instrument of partition has not yet been executed.

(3.) MR . Harbhagwan Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that two of the plaintiffs have already sold their portion of the land vide sale deeds dated 25. 2. 1997 and 30. 4. 1997 and from these sale deeds it is evident that they had made construction on this land. He further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 had also executed sale deed dated 18. 9. 1997 and had even received the entire amount of consideration as is evident from the sale said deed (copy of which is Annexure R/c/t) but the registration of this sale deed was refused by the Suo Registrar, Mahindergarh due to stay granted by the Civil Court. He further submitted that the document R/c/t further shows that the vendee was allowed to raise any type of construction on the land which was sold vide this sale deed. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the respondents were willing to give an undertaking that they will remove the construction in case the suit is decreed against the respondents by the learned trial court.