Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 208 (RAJ)

Sohan Singh v. Ram Nath

1999-02-17

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH

body1999
Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. (2). This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.98 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar in civil misc. case no. 14/95 Dula Ram vs. Ramnath & Ors., whereby the application filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected. (3). The appellants case is that the suit land was owned by Harnam Singh and Harnam Singh had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the appellant. After the death of Harnam Singh, Jeet Kaur, Ram Nath and Jagir Singh succeeded to the estated left by Harnam Singh. Ramnath (defendant no. 1 executed three agreeme- nts to sell in favour of the appellant and handed over the possession to the appellant in part performance of the contract of sale. It is also alleged by the appellant that Hardayal Singh (respondent no. 4) filed a suit for specific performance of contract to sell against Ram Nath, Jagir Singh and Jeet Kaur. That suit was decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The appellant after the passing of the decree in the above mentioned suit, filed three separate suits against Ramnath and other defendants for specific performance of contract the sell. The appellant also moved an application u/O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC praying that the defendants-respondents be restrained from taking action in pursuance of the decree dated 7.1.95 not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It was also prayed that the defendants be restrained from transferring the suit land to any body during the pendency of the suit. (4). The learned Additional District Judge after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made at the bar by the counsels for both the parties rejected the applications filed by the appellant plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. (5). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has filed a suit for specific performance of contracts against the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 and also for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no. 4 by the respondents no. 1 to 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has filed a suit for specific performance of contracts against the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 and also for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no. 4 by the respondents no. 1 to 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the ap- pellant that since the appellant is in possession of the disputed lands covered by the three agreement to sell executed in his favour by the respondent No.1, the appe- llant is entitled to protect his possession till the suit for specific performance of con- tract is finally disposed of. It is also submitted by him that the appellant apprehends that if the decree passed in favour of Harnam Singh is given effect to and sale deed is executed in favour of Hardayal Singh, the respondents may forcibly interfere with the possession of the appellant. He has, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and necessation injunction be issued to protect the possession of the land. (6). Since, a Court of competent jurisdiction has already passed a decree in favour of Hardayal Singh (respondent No. 4) in a suit filed by Hardayal Singh against the respondents no. 1 to 3 for specific performance of the contract to sell, unless sufficient evidence is produced to show that the agreement to sell which is the basis of the suit was forged document, it cannot be presumed that the agreement to sell produced in that case was a forged document or that the decree passed in that case was collusive I, therefore, find no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge Raisinghnagar on 26.11.98. (7). So far as the question of protecting the possession of the appellant, which possession is alleged to have been taken by the appellant in part performance of the contract to sell is concerned, it is well established that if a person is in peaceful possession of any immovable property, then nobody can interfere with his possession otherwise in accordance with the procedure established by law. Even in those cases, where the possession is forcibly taken by any person, the person, who is deprived of his possession unlawfully and by use of force, has a right to recover the possession under the Specific Relief Act. Even in those cases, where the possession is forcibly taken by any person, the person, who is deprived of his possession unlawfully and by use of force, has a right to recover the possession under the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, if the appellant apprehends that any person may forcibly dispossessed him from the land in dispute, he can take appropriate action in accordance with the law in force. So far as the apprehension that the appellant may be dispossessed in execution of the decree passed in favour of respondent no.4 is concerned, if the appellant is in possession of the property in suit and the decree is not binding on him, nothing prevents the appellant from raising his objections under Rule 97 of Order 21 C.P.C. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 of Order 21 C.P.C. requires the Court, before which objection is filed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. Therefore, if the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute, he can raise his objections against the dispossession and execution of the decree in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 21 C.P.C. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of at the admission stage.