GRAM SEWA SAHKARI Vs. SHRIMATI FEFI SAMITI LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 18.7.1987 whereby the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 6.8.1981. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti and Prabhu Lal, Treasurer of plaintiff no.1-Samiti filed the suit for mere injunction against the defendant Smt.Fefi. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff-Society purchased one plot on 7.1.1960 by registered sale-deed after paying the consideration of Rs.600/- to the vendor. The plot size is 60' x 90'. The possession of the plot was delivered to the plaintiff-Society. Since then the plaintiff-Society is in possession of the said plot. According to the plaint allegations, the plaintiff-Society came to know on 29.3.1977 that the defendant with intention to encroach upon the plaintiff's part of the plot measuring 13 'x 90', collected some construction materials and started digging foundation for raising constructions, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction and prayed that the defendant be restrained from encroaching upon the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs valued the suit for injunction and paid the court fees for relief of injunction only. However, in the relief, it has also been prayed that in case during pendency of the suit if possession of the plot is taken by the defendant then the decree for possession may also be granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The defendant submitted written statement and admitted that the said plot was purchased by the plaintiff-Society by registered saledeed dated 27.1.1960 and it was purchased through the Society's President Shanti Lal and Secretary Manohar Lal. Said Shanti Lal and Manohar Lal without permission of Society, constructed building over the plot in dispute, therefore, the plaintiff-Society passed the resolution dated 13.3.1964, and decided not to accept the plot over which said Shanti Lal and Manohar Lal constructed seed-godown. In such situation, the President and the Secretary of the plaintiff-Society gave letter to the Panchayat Samiti of the Village Rashmi on 5.4.1964 and handed over possession of the seed-godown to the Panchayat Samiti, Rashmi. The Panchayat Samiti, Rashmi took possession of the seed-godown and started one veterinary hospital also in the said plot. It is also submitted that part of the land remained in possession of Shanti Lal and Manohar Lal who sold this part of the land measuring 13' x 90' to the defendant by registered sale-deed dated 26.8.1965. The possession of the said piece of land was delivered to the defendant by said Shanti Lal and Manohar Lal, therefore, the defendant is in possession of the plot since 1965. In view of the above, the defendant prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs for injunction only be dismissed.

(3.) It will be worthwhile to mention here that the defendant pleaded that she purchased the plot on 26.8.1965 and she is in possession of the plot since then, still the plaintiffs did not amend the suit to challenge the sale-deed dated 26.8.1965 and sought relief of possession on the basis of title. The plaintiffs also did not value the suit for relief of possession, therefore, the suit continued to be suit for injunction, may it be for relief of mandatory injunction in case the defendant takes possession forcibly or illegally during pendency of the suit.