208 CivilRevisionN03719 of 2009 1 C51 IN THE HIGH COURT Ol PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR Civil Revision N05719 of 2009 Decided onll122009 m RajbirSingh Petitioncr 0 0 Versus SubhashChand and others Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE KCe PUR1 C Z Present Mr KArora Advocate for thepetitioner 08 Mr Ashish AggarwalAdvcate for the oo 2 KCPURI J 2 Ll This is a revision petitionfiled by thc petitionerunder Article 227 ofthe Constitation ofIndia with a prayer for quashingilnpugned order dated 1182009 Annexure P2I passedby Iearned Additional District JudgeKallnal and for restorationof the orders dated 1082009 passedby IearnedCivil JudgeoluniorDivisiol Karnal on an applicalion8led bythe under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil 1 Procedure6in short the CPC beingin continuous The brief facts of the case as well as stayapplication are that JagmalSinghfather of the plaints No l to 6 and husband of plaintin No was owner in possession of the land 52 kanals 111 Uma 2012.12.19 14: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 209 1Civil Revision N05719 of 2009 2 13 lnarlasas per for the years20031 who dicd on 172008 behind theplaintif as his legalheirs 116rNcvcrsaid Singh had soldthe land measuring29 kanals O inarla out of the aoforesaidland beforehis deathby way offour sale dcedsbearingVasika No400511 dated 1 962005 697911dated29005 155811datcd 932005 and 202511 dated C 11 6007 with the offlce of Sub 12egistrar Karnal in favour of 0 C the defendant The suit land beingancestral propertyand being not I exclusive owner said JagmalSinghwas not compctent to sell the same witllout consenl of the other coparcenerse plainliffs The Z defendantis bcnt upon to the applicantolaintiffs from the suit r land Plaintiffs have got a gooconma facie case in their favour and the I balanceofconvenience also lies in their favour Theyprayedfor issuanceof 08 an order the defendant froln interfering in the peaceful possessionof the in the suit Jand till the final decision 7 Z of the suit 3 tl On notice defendantappcaredand filcd his wrtttcn statement and replyto the stayapplication and took up preliininary objcctions thatthe SUlt of the and are not maintailoablein the present form the pIaintiffshave no locistandi and no causc of action to Ole the prescntsuit hasbccn accruedto lhc plaintiffs On incrits the defendatltpleadcdthat the plaintiEeapplicants have no concern with the suit Iand as thc samc was purchasedby way of valid consideratlonand through afolinentioncd rcgistercdsalc dccdsThe havc neithcr got a good prima facic case nor any balanceofconveniencelie in their favour as allegcd Uma 2012.12.19 14: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 210 Clvil Revision 11103719of 2009 3 The learnedtrial Couit after hearingthe earned counsel for the parties dismissedthe application fclr intcriin injunction 1eeling desatislled with the abovc said ordci of dissal of appl ication for interiin injunctionthe plaitltii icallts filcd appeal 1 beforethe learnedAdditional District Judgewho after hearingthe learned r counsel for the partiespassed an order directingthe partiesto maintaln 0 CAo status quo alienation and the possessiontill the Onal decision of the case Feelingdissatisfled with the aforcsaid order the defendant Z has filed the instantpetitionunder Articlc 227 of the Constitution 2 r of lndia for scttingasidethe orderpassedbythc IearnedAdditional District I Judge and to restore the orderpassedbythe Iearnedlrial Court 08 I have heard learned counsel for the particsand have gone throughtherecordsofthe casc 7 Lcarnedcounscl for thepetitionerhaschallenged thc iinpugned tl order dated 112009 AnnexureP21 passedbylcarncd Additional District JudgeKallnal in respectofpossession alone Ilc has submittcdthat he has 110 objection in order of stalus quo regardi the alienation of propertybut has subinittedthat Firsl AppellateCourt has committeda grave error ltl granting order of status quo regarding in resloectof the SU11property It is contended that ranl the relief of temporary iojunctionregardingpossessionthc plaintiffhas prove lhc factthatly are in possessionof the suit property JagmalSinghhas sold Iand 29 kanals to the petitionerthroughdi fferent fcur sale dceds dated96005 for ten kanals 292005 for threekanals dated 93005 for r Uma 2012.12.19 14: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 211 Civil Revision No719 of 2009 4 nlne kanalsand dated 116007 for seven kanals The possession ofthe said land wasdelivered to thepetitionerThe Orst Appellate Court has also held that petitioner1S 111 and in spitcof that 8ndngthe said learned Courthas ordered the status quo regardi ng also The hasprayedthat the petitionbe acceptcdand order of status quo r possession be vacated and the appllcationof the 0 for teinporaryinjunctlOll lll respect of relief of I be disinissed lt is funher contended that land has been sold by JagmalSingh for legalnecessity He Messey Z Tractor valuingRs5000001 out of the sale consideration 14e haspaidthe debt Out of that consideration JaglnalSinghalso constructed I spacious house by lt out of the salc consideration Jagmal J 08 Singharranged the marriages of his sons SubhashChander in the year 2006 and SanjeevKumar in the year 2007 and spent hugeamount on the 7 Z JagmalSinghhas sworn affldavit regardlngdeliveryof D in respectof speciflckhasranumbers ln replytoabove noted submissions Iearncdcounsel forthe has supportcdthe order of the appellateCourt It lS contendedthat exceptin one sale deed no amount has been shown to be paid beforc the Sub RegistrarJagmal Singhis a drunkard and man of VlCes No amount of loan was paid here waS 110 lcgalncccssity In fact no amount was paid The IearnedAppellatcCourt had rightlyordered the status quo It is furthercontendedthat accordillgto tlle thrce sale deeds the defendantoetitioner has the share out of the joint khata The validityof thc aflidavit delivery01oosscsslonof specilicportionis to be Uma 2012.12.19 14: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 212 r e Civil RevisionN03719 of 2009 5 0 duringlhe course of trial he plaintiffs are Itl of the suitproperty The order of status quo has been rightlypasscdby the First Court ln these circumstances as the actual is to be determinedduringthe course of trial The khasragirdwaricannot be relied upon at this stage So prayer has bcen inadc for dismissal ofthe petition r I have considered the subinissions madeby the both the sides 0 1 c3 andhavegonethrough the recordsofthe case The learned trial Court dislnissed the applicatlon for holding thatJagmalSinghhas delivcred in favour ofthe present Z and revenue record is in his favour It has becn funher observed by the trial Court that the plaintiffhas not been able to prove priinafacie tr case 111 his favour and consequcntlythe applicationfor njunctionwas I 08 dismissed The first AppellateCourl in para No6 of the judginenthas e7 Z observedthat documentsare showingthat RajbirSingh6nowpetitioner 1S 15 in of the suit propertybut has further observed that since the plaintiffsespondents have assertedthat theyare in possessionSo in these circumstanccsthe ordei ofstatus quo be mainlained The fact whether 1hcsale deed is for legalnecessity or notis a matter of evidcnce and that can be adjudcated uringthe course of trial The goldenprinciplesof grantof injunctionthat plaintiflhas to prove a prlina facie casc balance of COnveniellCC and that toheywill suffer irreparable Ioss and injuryif injunction IS not grantcd The trial Court has returneda findingthat plaintiffhas failed to prove thc said inorcdientslor grantof injunctionIt lS setlled law that party who secks injunction Uma 2012.12.19 14: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document J 213 dSCivil Revision N03719 of 2009 6 has to provc prilnafacic his over the suit Even the AppellateCourt has observed lhat record sbows that defendants is in posscssion ofthe suit propcrty Thc khasragirdwariplaced on the recordprovedthe of defendantnow pctitioncrThe relief 1 is a discretionary reliefand theAppellate Court should be slow r in interfering ln the discretionexercisedbythe trial Court regarding grantof 0 C3 unIcss the order of the trial Courl i3erverse Tllc 111sl Ic Appellate Court has not considered the sald aspccl of the case while I decidingthe appeal ln one of the sale deedslhe anlount is statedto have Z been paidbefore the Sub Registrar and the sale collsideration pertaining to the remaining three sale deeds is staled to have bcen paidearlicr The I petitioner before this Court has taken a pleathat house was constructedby 08 JagnlalSinghvendor and he had paidloan to various authoriti es and had solemnizedtheinarriages of his two sons who are thc plaintiffrcspondents m7 2 in this casc So the lnatter needsthorough duringthe course of trial No injunctionregardingpossession can be grantcdunless thc plaintiffs prove their posscssionover the property Since the llrst Appellate Court has itself held that document shows the possessionof defendant n lhat case the llrst AppellateCourt has COlnnlittederror by passingorder of status quo regarding Thc Khasra girdwaris are in favourofthe petitioners The Iearned counscl lor thc rcspondents has subllnittd that except lll one sale dced lll all other lhrcc salc dcccls sharc has been purchasedby the defendants SO 111thesc clrculnstances possessi on could not have been delivered 10 RajbirSingh Howevcr the prescntpetitiollers r Uma 2012.12.19 14: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 214 Civil Revision No719 of 2009 7 0 hadplaced on file the affidavit ofRajbirSinghvide which the of specifckhasra nuinbershas been delivered regaldingwhicll iunction has beensoughtbytheplaintiffespondents So in view of the above discussion thc petilionstandspaltly The order of status quo passeclby thc first appellate Court regarding standsset aside andthat oftrial Coutt standrestored 0 0 I4owever the order ofstatus quoregarding alienationofthe suit standsmaintained as thc salne has not been challengedby the counselfor thepctitionerduringthc course of argumcnt Z Iiowever it is madc clear that anylhingobserved above shall 0 not be construedas an ofopinionon the lnerits ofthe case I The revision petitionstandsdisposedofaccordingly 08 A copy ofthisjudgmentbe sent to the trial Court lor strict compliance e 4 6 Qw Decemberll2009 SV JlJlOGE Uma 2012.12.19 14: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document