IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1456 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.3.2009 Kuldeep and others ....Petitioners Versus Smt. Battan Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL J The challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the learned Courts below whereby the application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs for interim stay during the pendency of the suit was allowed and the petitioners/defendants were restrained from interfering into their possession. Briefly the facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that they are owners in possession of the suit land which was purchased by them vide two registered sale deeds dated September 6, 2005 from the father of the petitioners and the possession of the land was also transferred to them. However, the petitioners were seeking to dispossess the respondents/plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the lessee on the land in question. Learned Court below did not find any merit in the case set up by the petitioners and granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sale of land in favour of respondents is vide two sale deeds dated September 6, 2005 whereas prior to that lease deeds regarding the suit land had been executed in favour of petitioners on April 7, 2004 and even the possession of the land was also transferred to them. Once there was a prior document existing showing the possession of the land with the petitioners there was no question of handing over of possession of the land at the time of execution of sale deeds in favour of the respondents. C.R. No. 1456 of 2009 (O&M) -2- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Defendants No.1 and 2 had sold the property to respondents/plaintiffs vide registered sale deeds dated September 6, 2005. As per the recital in the sale deeds as noticed in the order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, it was specifically mentioned that no lease deed has been executed in favour of any person. The possession of land was also delivered. However, when the petitioners who are the sons and grand-sons of defendants No.1 and 2 who had sold the property to respondents/plaintiffs started interfering into possession claiming to be lessee on the suit land in terms of the alleged lease deed executed in their favour on April 7, 2004, the suit came to be filed. Both the learned Courts below found that once there is recital in the sale deeds which is a registered document executed on September 6, 2005, clearly mentioning non execution of any lease deed in favour of any person and also handing over of physical possession, to claim that the same is a fictitious document over and above the lease deed executed in favour of petitioners was not found to be prima-facie tenable as the same was opined to be a matter which was required to be dealt with after the evidence of the parties was led. Even otherwise the vendor to the respondents/plaintiffs was none else but father/grand-father and mother/grand-mother of the petitioners, who, while selling the property to respondents/plaintiffs very well knew if any lease deed had been executed by them and by mentioning in the sale deeds that there was no lease deed and handing over the possession to respondents/plaintiffs was just to non-suit the petitioners from the land in dispute, even if there was any alleged lease deed. For the reasons mentioned above, I do no find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 18.3.2009 JUDGE Reema