Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1581 (DEL)

Ravinder v. Virendar Singh

2007-08-07

J.M.MALIK

body2007
J.M. MALIK, J. 1. The appellant / plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 22.10.1996 as well as for permanent injunction praying that the defendants / respondents be restrained from dispossessing him from the suit land. This court vide its order dated 18.09.1997 directed the defendants / respondents not to create any third party interest and directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. Previously the case was pending before this court but due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the case was transferred before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge vide its order dated 31.01.2007 dismissed the application moved by the appellant / plaintiff and allowed the application of the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Aggrieved by that order first appeal was preferred. I dismissed the appeal vide my order dated 15.03.2007. 2. In the meantime, the respondents moved an application before the District Judge dated 05.07.2007, wherein the following averments were made. After vacation of the interim order the appellant brought labour at the land in dispute on 03.05.2007 in order to cultivate the land. The appellant called the police, made a complaint that the respondents were taking possession of his land and were attempting to manhandle him. Appellant, who was accompanied by various jhuggi dwellers claimed that he would not allow the defendants/respondents to cultivate their land. Both the parties were taken to the police station. It is alleged that the appellant had good influence over the police, he being a property dealer. The police also threatened the respondents. The respondents prayed that the appellant be restrained from interfering in respondents peaceful possession of the land in dispute till the disposal of the suit. It was further prayed that SHO be directed not to create any hindrance in cultivation of the suit land. 3. The appellant contested this application. His main defence is that even if it is assumed that appellant is in illegal possession of the suit property, even then, he cannot be thrown out of the suit land without due process of law. He also pointed out that prior to the agreement with the respondents he had entered into agreement with their father viz. Mahender Singh on 18.10.1995. The copy of agreement to sell and purchase was produced before me. Vide para no. He also pointed out that prior to the agreement with the respondents he had entered into agreement with their father viz. Mahender Singh on 18.10.1995. The copy of agreement to sell and purchase was produced before me. Vide para no. 2 of said agreement the possession of the land was handed over to the appellant. Subsequently, it transpired that father of the appellant had no right, title or interest in the case property and the appellant entered into an agreement with one Sohan Pal Singh dated 26.10.1995, wherein para no. 2, it was reiterated that the possession was given to the appellant. However, subsequently, the appellant came to know that these were the respondents, the sons of Mahender Singh, who were the real owners of the land in dispute. Ultimately, the appellant entered into an agreement to sell with the respondents on 22.10.1996. Appellant also moved an application under Section 151 CPC that in order to ascertain physical possession of the suit land Local Commissioner may be appointed. 4. The learned ADJ held that vide his order dated 31.01.2007 he had dealt with the aspect of possession. According to record, 3 acres of land is lying vacant and in case of vacant land it is very easy to make oral plea about the possession but agreement dated 22.10.1996 does not favour the appellant. Secondly, the appellant had made contradictory statements. Trial court did not accept the request of the appellant to appoint Local Commissioner. Trial court, however, accepted the application moved by the respondents and restrained the appellant from interfering in use and cultivation of the land measuring 3 acres comprised in Khasra no. 5/14, 15, 16, min 17 situated in village Jindpur Delhi. The trial court also observed that there was apprehension of altercation between the parties, therefore, in order to avoid such unforeseen eventualities, copy of the order was sent to SHO, Police Station Narela for getting compliance of his order in terms of Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.M. Nagarajan & Ors., 1988 (15) DRJ 212 . .5. Aggrieved by that order the appellant has approached this court. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that order dated 18.09.1997 was passed in his favour wherein parties were asked to maintain status quo. T.M. Nagarajan & Ors., 1988 (15) DRJ 212 . .5. Aggrieved by that order the appellant has approached this court. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that order dated 18.09.1997 was passed in his favour wherein parties were asked to maintain status quo. He has also drawn my attention towards an order passed on 24.07.2001, by this court, wherein the following order was passed and the relevant extract is reproduced as follows :- “It is also submitted by Mr. Gupta that in case the land in question has vested in Gaon Sabha and the plaintiff is not interested in getting the sale deed of the land in question, the defendant is willing to refund the earnest money provided the plaintiff hands over the possession of the land in question to the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff wants to seek instruction from the plaintiff. On this aspect, at his request, adjourned to 7th August, 2001.” The learned counsel pointed out that it is apparent that on that day plaintiff / appellant was in possession of the case property. He submitted that even if the appellant is a trespasser, he cannot be thrown out except in due course of law. He also submitted that the Honble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for grant of equitable relief in respect of the interlocutory mandatory injunction in cases reported in Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 117 and in Rame Gowda (Dead) By LRs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) By LRs & Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 769 . He vehemently argued that the order passed by the trial court that police aid should be granted is not legally tenable. 6. For the following reasons I see no force in these arguments. As a matter of fact agreement to sell dated 22.10.1996 is the most relevant document in this case. Other agreements pale into insignificance. Its relevant stipulation is reproduced as follows :- “That the first party will deliver the actual physical vacant possession of the said land which is undersale to the second party at the time of registration of the sale deed.” It must be noticed that this agreement was executed by the real owners. This is the valid and significant agreement. The other agreements carry exiguous value or no value in the eyes of law. This is the valid and significant agreement. The other agreements carry exiguous value or no value in the eyes of law. Those documents are waste papers which have to be swept under the mattress. 7. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to fathom as to how the appellant can claim that he is in possession of the plot in dispute since 1995 or 1997. It must be borne in mind that he is yet to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the respondents as per the agreement. I have also perused Khasra Girdawari produced on the record which goes to show that in the year 1996-97 respondents were in possession of the plot in dispute till 19.08.1997. The claim of the appellant that he is in possession of the plot in dispute since 1995 stands falsified. In case the appellant is in possession of the case property since 1995 he should have produced the Khasra Girdawari and Khatoni etc. in support of his claim. The plot of 3 acres is a vacant plot and nobody can claim that he has acquired its possession. Its symbolic as well as actual possession will always vest with the respondents who are its actual owners till the registration of the sale deed. 8. In FAO 86/2007 decided on 15th March, 2007 by this court, I held, “5. It goes beyond the pale of my comprehension as to how did the appellant get the possession of the suit land, particularly, when it was agreed between the parties that the respondents would deliver the actual physical vacant possession of the said land in favour of the appellant at the time of registration of the sale deed. The appellant has failed to explain as to how he came into the possession of the suit land. He is not supposed to take the possession of the land by hook or by crook. The court never appreciates when the subject takes the law in its own hands. If somebody has got grouse, he should knock at the doors of the court. This is the paramount duty of the court to put a ring of protection towards weak and meek.” 9. The trial court has noted that there is apprehension of breach of peace. The court never appreciates when the subject takes the law in its own hands. If somebody has got grouse, he should knock at the doors of the court. This is the paramount duty of the court to put a ring of protection towards weak and meek.” 9. The trial court has noted that there is apprehension of breach of peace. The learned counsel for the appellant did not pick up a conflict with the point that the above said authority cited by the learned trial court in Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.M. Nagarajan & Ors.(Supra) has no application to the facts of this case. I see no infirmity or illegality in the order. The appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. CM No.9694/2007 also stands dismissed.