C. R. No. 5393 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5393 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 26, 2010 Harnam Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Kartar Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jatinder K. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 21650-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below in securing temporary injunction. Plaintiffs no.2 and 3 are sons of plaintiff no.1. Vide registered transfer deed dated 18.05.2005, plaintiff no.1, who was sole owner in possession of 19 kanals land in suit, transferred 03 kanals 19 marlas 05 C. R. No. 5393 of 2010 (O&M) 2 sarsahis land out of it along with 04 kanals other land in favour of plaintiffs no.2 and 3. Plaintiffs no.2 and 3 thus became owners in possession of 80/380th share of 19 kanals land in suit. However, defendants no.1 and 2, in connivance with Mr. Vikram Kapoor, Advocate – scribe of the transfer deed and in collusion with witnesses Sher Gajjan Singh Nambardaar and Jarnail Singh, got prepared a fake sale deed 18.05.2005 regarding remaining 15 kanals suit land and got the said sale deed registered. The said sale deed has been challenged in the suit allegedly having been obtained by fraud. Plaintiffs claim that they are owners in possession of the entire suit land. During pendency of the suit, plaintiffs claimed temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from alienating the same during pendency of the suit. Defendants no.1 and 2 inter alia pleaded that plaintiff no.1 himself sold 15 kanals land out of the suit land to defendants no.1 and 2 i.e. 03 kanals to defendant no.1 (60/380th share of 19 kanals land) and 12 kanals land to defendant no.2 (240/380th share of 19 kanals land) for consideration of Rs.5,16,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 18.05.2005, which is legal and valid. Defendants no.1 and 2 became owners in possession of the said 15 kanals land. Defendants no.3 to 6 pleaded that defendants no.4 to 6 have purchased 03 kanals land out of the suit land from defendant no.1 vide sale deed dated 04.06.2007 and defendant no.1 has exchanged 10 marlas land C. R. No. 5393 of 2010 (O&M) 3 out of the suit land with other land of defendants no.3 to 6, who are in possession thereof. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira, vide impugned order dated 05.02.2010, dismissed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the plaintiffs stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur, vide impugned judgment dated 11.05.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that impugned sale deed regarding 15 kanals land is shown to have been registered just 15 minutes after the transfer deed was got registered by plaintiff no.1 in favour of plaintiffs no.2 and 3 regarding part of the suit land and other land. It was contended that the impugned sale deed in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 is result of fraud and misrepresentation and plaintiff no.1 had never executed the same and the sale deed was obtained in view of illiteracy of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that plaintiff-petitioners are still in possession of the suit land and they have been selling its crop, as evidenced by sale documents Annexure P-1(Colly.) and even compensation for damage to plaintiffs' crop in the suit land was granted by Tehsildar vide cheque Annexure P-2. C. R. No. 5393 of 2010 (O&M) 4 I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Impugned sale deed dated 18.05.2005 is a registered sale deed. It was scribed by Mr. Vikram Kapoor, Advocate. It has been attested by Sher Gajjan Singh Nambardar and Jarnail Singh. Sher Gajjan Singh, Nambardar is of the village of the plaintiffs themselves. The sale deed was registered by Sub Registrar. Prima facie it cannot be said that Mr. Vikram Kapoor, Advocate – scribe of the sale deed, both attesting witnesses of the sale deed, officials of the office of Sub Registrar and also the Sub Registrar himself had all colluded to procure the aforesaid sale deed on behalf of plaintiff-petitioner no.1 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. Defendant no.2 is in fact a minor. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to depict that the impugned sale deed is result of any fraud or collusion. On the other hand, prima facie there is authenticity attached to the endorsement of registration of the sale deed. Mere sale of some agricultural produce by the plaintiffs does not depict that they are in possession of the suit land because the crop could pertain to some other land, as admittedly the plaintiffs have other land in addition to the suit land. Even out of the suit land, plaintiffs no.2 and 3 have 04 kanals land. For the same reason, cheque of compensation Annexure P-2 is also of no help to the plaintiffs. Both the courts below have considered the matter and found that case for grant of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs is not made C. R. No. 5393 of 2010 (O&M) 5 out. The said conclusion of the courts below is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional power. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Needless to say that nothing observed herein above shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit. August 26, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE