BAJRANG LAL Vs. SMT. DHANNI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties. It appears that the trial court has dismissed application of the appellant plaintiff seeking temporary injunction vide impugned order by observing that sale -deed executed by the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the appellant plaintiff in the year 1967 was void -ab -initio in view of Section 42 of the Tenancy Act. In support of the said observation of the trial court, the learned counsel Mr. Surana has submitted that since the sale deed was found to be void ab -initio, the trial court had rightly dismissed the application of the appellant plaintiff seeking temporary injunction.

(2.) IN this regard, it may be stated that a registered sale deed was executed by late Shri Birdha, who happened to be the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent nos. 2 to 4 in favour of the present appellant in respect of the suit property in the year 1967 and the appellant was in possession of the suit property since then. It appears that subsequently the respondent nos. 1 to 4 sold out the said suit property to the respondent No. 5 by executing registered sale deed dated 10.12.2007. This Court fails to understand as to how the respondent nos. 1 to 4 could have executed the sale deed in the year 2007 in favour of respondent No. 5, when earlier the registered sale deed executed by the predecessor of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in the year 1967 was already in existence. In any case, it will be a matter of evidence, whether such a registered sale deed executed in the year 1967 was void -ab -initio or not and whether the respondent nos. 1 to 4 could have sold the said property to the respondent No. 5 or not. Since contentious issues have been raised in the suit, the trial court ought to have directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property pending the suit. Now, since the appeal is admitted today, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as regards the possession of the suit property, as also the alienation or creating third party interest in the suit property during the pendency of the appeal. The application stands disposed of accordingly.