MAHARAO BRIJRAJ SINGH Vs. SARASWATI DEVI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS misc. appeal arises out of order dated 2.2.2000 passed by the Addl. Judge No. 1, Kota in application for temporary injunction, whereby appellants (defendant) have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land during pendency of suit No. 1/2000 for specific performance of the contract.

(2.) PLAINTIFF -respondent instituted a suit seeking specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against Maharao Brijraj Singh and Thakur Prithvi Singh in respect of 80 Bighas of agricultural land situated in village Rampura Tehsil Ladpura District Kota renowned as Ummaid Vilas Enclave, bearing Khasra Nos. 433, 434, 436 to 439, 440 to 489, 491, 492/684 and 546/691. In the plaint, it was admitted case that the suit land stood acquired by State Govt. under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (for brevity ULCAR Act) but by order dated 24.2.1990, it had been released from its acquisition with the stipulation that suit lands would be allotted to weaker sections of the society for constructing their houses after due sanction of the UIT Kota.

(3.) IN the plaint, it was also case of the plaintiff that pursuant to oral sale agreement, 80 Bighas of suit land had been handed over by delivery of possession in her favour by Maharao Brijraj Singh, because she had paid sale consideration of Rs. 21 lacs on 26.2.1990, Rs. 6 lacs on 8.3.1990, Rs. 2 lacs on 15.3.1990 and Rs. 2 lacs on 22.3.1990 to Maharao Brij Raj Singh under its receipts issued by his agent and private Secretary Prithvi Singh (defendant No. 2). But, the defendants did not execute and get registered a sale deed pursuant to oral sale agreement rather they kept on prevaricating and despite the fact that the plaintiff had been in cultivatory possession over the suit land since 1980 and after such an oral agreement to sale, her possession was as a purchaser, the defendant No. 2 (Prithvi Singh) alongwith others attempted on 20.1.2000 to take back forcibly possession of the suit land so as to dispossess therefrom and thereby the plaintiff had to lodge an FIR besides preferred to institute a suit for specific performance, alongwith temporary injunction.