Civil Revision No.4084 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4084 of 2009 Date of decision : 23-7-2009 Azad Singh and another ....Petitioners VERSUS Manjit Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioners challenge an order dated 9-06-2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran accepting the appeal filed by respondents No.1 and 2, setting aside the order dated 30-5-2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tarn Taran and as a result allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. The plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit under Section 12 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgage Act, 1913 for a declaration that the order dated 1-11-2006, passed by the Collector Tarn Taran, ordering redemption of 8 kanals of land is illegal and void. Respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded that Karnail Singh was co- owner to the extent of 1/3rd share of land measuring 273 kanals and Civil Revision No.4084 of 2009 -2- 14 marlas. Karnail Singh, mortgaged with possession 8 kanals of land out of his share holding, for a sum of Rs.1 lac vide mortgage deed dated 4-5-1999. After sanction of the mutation of mortgage, the land was divided into two separate khasra numbers. Sukhbir Singh, son of Karnail Singh performa respondent No.3 sold these 8 kanals to respondents No.1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs.1,45,000/- vide sale deed dated 25-1-2000. The mortgage amount was adjusted in the sale consideration as Sukhbir Singh alleged that this land had fallen to his share in a family settlement. Karnail Singh expired and after his demise, the minor sons of Sukhbir Singh filed an application under Section 4 of the redemption of Mortgage Act, 1913 praying for redemption of the mortgage property by alleging that the mortgaged property had been inherited by them pursuant to a will. Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the application by alleging that vide sale deed dated 25-1-2000 the mortgage amount stood paid. Sukhbir Singh appeared as a witness, admitted the sale deed dated 25-1-2000, but the Collector vide order dated 1-11-2006 allowed the application for redemption. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 praying that the petitioners be restrained from dispossessing respondents No.1 and 2. Upon notice, the petitioners filed a written statement and on merits, pleaded that they had inherited the estate of Karnail Singh by a registered will dated 23-2-1995. They denied any family settlement between Karnail Singh and Sukhbir Singh and asserted that the order passed by the Collector is legal and valid. Sukhbir Singh, their Civil Revision No.4084 of 2009 -3- father, respondent No.3 filed a written statement alleging that the sale deed dated 25-1-2000 is a fabricated document. On the basis of the pleadings, and the arguments addressed, the trial Court dismissed the prayer for interim injunction by holding that respondents No.1 and 2 had not approached the Court with clean hands and as no irreparable loss, harm or damage would be caused to them, they were not entitled to grant of an interim injunction. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the respondents No.1 and 2 filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (Ad-hoc) Tarn Taran accepted the appeal, reversed the order passed by the trial Court and restrained the petitioners from taking possession till the disposal of the suit. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that the recitals in the sale deed dated 25-1-2000 with respect to the family settlement and the adjustment of the mortgage amount appear to be correct are perverse. Sukhbir Singh has specifically denied the execution of the sale deed and, therefore, the mere fact that he has not challenged the sale deed or that Karnal Singh did not assert, during his life time, that there was no family settlement is irrelevant. It is further argued that after the passing of the order by the Collector Tarn Taran directing redemption of the mortgage land, the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to order stay of dispossession. It is also submitted that the story of a family settlement between Sukhbir Singh and Karnail Singh is false and the sale deed dated 25-1-2000 is a fabricated document. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and find no reason Civil Revision No.4084 of 2009 -4- to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court. Admittedly, respondents No.1 and 2 were mortgagees of the suit land. Whether Sukhbir Singh and Karnail Singh arrived at a family settlement and whether Sukhbir Singh executed a sale deed in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 is a matter that would be determined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence. The sale deed dated 25-1-2000 is a registered document and till such time as the petitioners do not establish its falsity, it would prima facie entitle respondents No.1 and 2 to assert their ownership. Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgage Act, 1913 empowers a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector to file a civil suit. Respondents No.1 and 2 have challenged the order of redemption by asserting that the mortgage amount stands paid as recited in the sale deed dated 25-1-2000 and they are in possession as owners. Consequently, the First Appellate Court did not commit any error by granting an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering in the suit land. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed. Nothing stated herein shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJIVE BHALLA) 23-07-2009 JUDGE manju