C.R.No.6921 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6921 of 2008. Decided on: October 21, 2009. Rati Ram and another .. Petitioners VERSUS Rajinder Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The Courts below while deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, have passed the order of status quo regarding the title and possession of the property in dispute. The plaintiffs-respondents have filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.12.2002, claiming that the defendants- petitioners had agreed to sell the land which is 1/8th share of 99 kanals 14 marlas as mentioned in the heading of the plaint and received sale consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- on 30.12.2002. It has . . . 1 C.R.No.6921 of 2008 been claimed by the plaintiffs-respondents that possession was also delivered to the plaintiffs pursuant to agreement of sale. It appears that there is also a stipulation in the agreement that the defendants would repay the loan taken by them from Ballabhgarh Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Village Development Board Limited on account of failure on the part of the defendants to repay the loan. It is alleged that sale deed could not be executed but defendants- appellants have denied the execution of the agreement of sale as well as the delivery of possession to the plaintiffs-respondents. It has been claimed by the defendants that the agreement of sale and receipt have been forged and fabricated and that possession was never delivered. The Courts below while deciding the application for interim injunction have relied upon the receipt and agreement to sell regarding the delivery of possession to the plaintiffs and ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession and restrained the defendants from alienating the suit land during the pendency of the suit. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that in view of provisions of Sections 33 & 35 of the Stamp Act and the law laid down in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) Page 615, Avninash Kumar Chauhan Vs.Vijay Krishna Mishra, that when possession of property is given to the purchaser under an agreement, it is necessary to levy the stamp duty on an instrument whereby the possession has been transferred. Counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the . . . 2 C.R.No.6921 of 2008 suit was filed on 31.05.2008, whereas the agreement is alleged to have been executed on 30.12.2002. Thus, prima facie, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time as such, the plaintiffs-respondents do not have a strong case warranting grant of interim injunction. I have heard counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the respondents and gone through the impugned order and the documents referred to by counsel for the parties. So far as the provisions of Stamp Act are concerned, the document of agreement of sale in which possession of property is alleged to have been given to the purchaser requires affixation of Stamp duty as per law. In case of violation of provisions of Stamp Act, the said instrument when produced can be impounded on account of inadequately stamped. A document of agreement of sale in which possession is alleged to have been delivered cannot be ignored solely on the ground of inadequacy of the stamp duty. There is a serious dispute between the parties regarding the execution of an agreement dated 30.12.2002, the receipt of the sale consideration and regarding the subject matter of the agreement of sale. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents in the year 31.05.2008, the parties have maintained status quo regarding possession and title though a period of more than one year has elapsed. Any observation on the basis of the documents on record pertaining to possession would not be appropriate, at this stage, however, ends of justice would be adequately met in case a direction is given to the trial Court to dispose of the trial within a period of one year after the receipt of . . . 3 C.R.No.6921 of 2008 copy of the order of this Court. The parties will maintain status quo regarding the possession as ordered by the Courts below. So far as the interim injunction regarding the alienation is concerned, it is directed that in case the defendants-petitioners have got an intention to alienate the property, in any manner, they would intimate to the Court and bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent purchaser so that necessary steps in accordance with law could be taken by the plaintiffs. With above observations, this petition is disposed of. A copy of order be communicated to the Court Concerned. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 21, 2009. rka . . . 4