GHANSHYAM & OTHERS Vs. MOOL SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with 151 CPC has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') against the order dated 28-5-2013 passed by Additional District Judge Gangapur City dismissing plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC filed along with the suit for possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order dated 28-5-2013 passed by the trial court.

(3.) The plaintiffs, sons of one Roomali Devi, filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') claiming therein that the suit house was in the name of their mother Roomali Devi, in respect of which she had been issued a Patta by Gram Panchayat Mahu Kala, Tehsil Gangapur City. It was their case that a room in the suit property had been let out to one Mithlesh Chaturvedi, which was thereafter vacated and possession of the room handed back. It was stated that on 3-12-2012 the defendants along with others forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs, then in ownership being successors of Roomali Devi, who had expired in the meantime. In the circumstances a decree of possession as also permanent injunction was sought against the defendants. On receipt of summons in the suit so laid, the defendants set up a case that on the basis of sale-deed, executed by Mithlesh Chaturvedi in their favour on 2-12-2013 the defendants had came into ownership and possession of the suit property. It was stated that Mithlesh Chaturvedi had earlier purchased the suit property from Roomali Devi under sale-deed dated 15-9-1997. It was submitted that in any event, one way or other, Mithlesh Chaturvedi under sale-deed dated 15-9-1997 and thereafter the defendants under sale-deed dated 2-12-2013 were in lawful and settled possession of the suit property, as against the patta-holder Roomali Devi, and her purported successors who were not in possession and now seeking to agitate a suit over 15 years subsequent to the sale of the suit property as early as 15-9-1997 by its erstwhile owner. It was submitted that the issue of rights vesting in defendants under sale-deed dated 2-12-2013, and prior thereto in favour of Mithlesh Chaturvedi under sale-deed dated 15-9-1997 by Roomali Devi in the first instance would be a subject matter of trial. It was submitted that in the event the possession of suit property were handed over to the plaintiffs, on an interim application, it would tantamount to final relief and effectively passing of a decree at the interim stage.