ATUL CHOTIYA Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR MANDIWAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dt. 3.11.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track No. 2, Sikar Headquarter Srimadhopur in Civil Misc. Case No. 48/2012 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff -respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondents 1 to 10 have filed a civil suit for specific performance and consequential to set aside the sale deed dt. 28.5.2012 which was executed in favour of the appellant -defendant No. 2 along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC stating that the land bearing khasra No. 984 old 1279 to 1287 measuring 4.45 hect. situated in village Khandela District Sikar, inherited by defendant -respondent No. 11 Vikram Singh Shekhawat by a will of erstwhile ruler Ramsingh Rajput. It was also stated that he is the owner of the land in question and a guest house was built on the land. The respondent No. 11 Vikram Singh Shekhawat entered into an agreement with the plaintiff -respondents 1 to 10 to sale the land in question in consideration of Rs. 81,00,000/ - on 19.8.2011 and it was stated that at present land is in the name of the Nagar Palika and a case is pending regarding ownership of the land as soon as he will get the mutation in his name in revenue record he will get executed the sale deed in their favour and it has been mentioned that on 19.8.2011 Rs. 21,00,000/ - were paid to him and an agreement on a stamp paper was executed and verified by the Notary Public and it was also mentioned that rest of Rs. 60,00,000/ - were to be paid at the time of registration of the land in question and it has also been stated that possession of the land in question was also handed over to the plaintiff -respondents 1 to 10 but on 15.6.2012 respondent No. 11 has got transferred the khatedari in his name by way of mutation No. 1157 and on 28.5.2012 sold the aforesaid land to the appellant -defendant No. 2 in the suit and in last they have prayed to restrain the respondents by way of temporary injunction not to alienate the land in question and further not to raise any construction and not to make any change in revenue record and in land. Reply to the application preferred by the plaintiff -respondents was filed by the appellant and the respondent No. 2 and denied the facts of the execution of the alleged agreement dt. 19.8.2011. After hearing both the sides, the learned Court below has passed the order dt. 3.11.2012 with the following directions:

(2.) AGAINST the said order and judgment dt. 3.11.2012 this appeal has been preferred by the appellant and contended that the alleged order passed by the Court below is contrary to the provisions of law. He has further pointed out that the plaintiff -respondents are not having any prima facie case in their favour. Neither prima facie, nor balance of convenience and irreparable loss is caused to the plaintiff. He has further pointed out that the plaintiff -respondent has made the basis of the agreement dt. 19.8.2011, which is completely false and fabricated because the aforesaid document is unregistered and not duly stamped and an FIR has been registered at Police Station Khandela bearing No. 272 dt. 7.9.2012 on the directions given by the judicial Magistrate Shrimadhopur dt. 6.9.2012 under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. He has further contended that the defendant -appellant is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question by way of registered sale deed. He. has further contended that on 19.8.2011 when the agreement was executed the land was not in the name of the defendant No. 1 Vikram Singh Shekhawat (respondent No. 11 herein). He has further contended that the agreement dt. 19.8.2011 is unregistered and executed on deficit stamp and not admissible in the evidence. In this connection he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rekha Kavi vs. Surendra Bohra & Ors., : 2012 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 245. All these arguments and the facts have been submitted before the trial Court but the same have not been considered by the Court and hence the judgment of the Court below be set aside granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff -respondents.

(3.) HE has further contended that the plaintiff -respondents have a prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in their favour for grant of stay and the order passed by the Court below is just and proper and no interference is called for. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dt. 3.11.2012. it is an admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 10 has entered into an agreement to sale on 19.8.2011 for Rs. 81,00,000/ - and for that purpose they have paid Rs. 21,00,000 in cash to Vikram Singh Shekhawat defendant -respondent No. 11. Vikram Singh Shekhawat executed the unregistered document of sale on deficit stamp which is duly attested by Notary Public in presence of two witnesses and the said document can be used for collateral purposes. The possession of the land and the agreement was also handed over to the respondents 1 to 10. But at this stage where the trial Court has passed the interim injunction against the defendant -appellant by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court granting interim injunction. However I direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the receipt of certified copy of this order, if possible. The appeal stands dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.