SOM NATH Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the courts whereby suit for permanent injunction in respect of residential house/property measuring 60 square yards, detailed in head note of the plaint, was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case, extracted from judgment of the first Appellate Court are that the plaintiffs purchased suit property from defendant No. 1 for sale consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and defendant No. 1 executed agreement to sell and receipt dated 4.12.2008 in favour of plaintiffs, in the presence of Lakhmi son of Chhajju Ram and Ram Pal son of Daulat Ram and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of suit property. It is averred that the plaintiffs along with their children are peacefully residing in the suit house without interruption. Ram Pal defendant No. 1 is the son of real uncle (Tau) of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 executed a false back dated alleged agreement to sell in favour of his wife defendant No. 2 which is the result of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation and without consideration. Agreement in favour of defendant No. 2 came to knowledge of plaintiffs only on 14.1.2009. The defendants in collusion with each other are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from suit property forcibly, illegally and unlawfully and they are further threatening to alienate the suit property to defeat rights of the plaintiffs. They prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession or to alienate/sell/transfer the suit property to anybody except the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendants filed joint written statement and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. It is alleged that suit property is ancestral house of the defendants and their son namely Sandeep Kumar. Defendant No. 1 is habitual drunkard. Defendant No. 2 had apprehension in her mind that defendant No. 1 may dispose of the suit property to satisfy his lust for liquor. To prevent defendant No. 1 from doing so, defendant No.2 has obtained agreement to sell in her favour from defendant No. 1 on 1.8.2007 of which all the neighbours including plaintiffs were very much aware. The plaintiffs tried their level best to purchase the suit property from defendant No. 2 but could not succeed. Taking advantage of bad habit of defendant No. 1, they have succeeded to obtain agreement to sell and receipt dated 4.12.2008. They have denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property with the averments that plaintiffs are trying to dispossess the defendants from suit property without any right, title or interest.