Civil Revision No. 7914 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7914 of 2011 Date of decision. 21.12.2011 Daulat Ram .... Petitioner Versus Mahender Gir and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Daulat Ram, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned District Judge, Sirsa, vide which the appeal filed by respondent no.2 against the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa has been accepted and the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed. The petitioner-plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.10.2009 executed in his favour by Dharam Chand, respondent no.3, vide which he agreed to sell Civil Revision No. 7914 of 2011 --2-- his land measuring 75 kanals situated in village Jodhkan Tehsil and District Sirsa for a sale consideration of Rs.45,62,500/-. It is the claim of the petitioner that out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- was paid to Dharam Chand, respondent no.3 as earnest money and possession of the land in dispute was handed over to him at the time of the execution of the agreement of sale. The date of execution of sale deed had been fixed as 19.01.2010. In response to the notice of the suit, Dharam Chand, respondent no.3 appeared and denied having executed of the alleged agreement of sale. He had claimed that he was kidnapped by his son and other relatives, regarding which he had lodged a report with the police, and was kept confined at the house of Asha Singh and was let off on 27.01.2010. It was averred that during this period, his thumb impressions were obtained on some blank stamp papers forcibly. According to him, the agreement might have been created on those papers. He had also pleaded that he had sold the land in question to defendants no.2 and 3 vide registered sale deed dated 19.02.2010 and had even delivered possession of the suit land to them. Defendants no.2 and 3 were also impleaded in the suit. Claiming that defendant nos. 2 and 3 are openly threatening to alienate the suit land and are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, he had applied for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property as also from interfering in his possession over the suit land. Civil Revision No. 7914 of 2011 --3-- The defendants claimed that they are absolute owners in possession of the suit property having purchased the same after payment of full consideration without notice of the alleged agreement of sale. The agreement is moreover claimed to be a result of fraud and manipulation and not binding on their rights. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division ), Sirsa had ordered the parties to maintain status quo till decision of the suit for the reason that the plaintiff and defendants no.2 and 3 are asserting their possession over the suit property and that the controversy between the parties could be resolved only after leading evidence. It was also observed that if during the pendency of the suit, defendants no.2 and 3 would alienate the suit land, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, defendants no.2 and 3 filed an appeal which has been decided by learned District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment dated 12.12.2011. Learned District Judge, Sirsa has found no prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. He has observed that on the one hand the plaintiff claimed right in the suit land under an unregistered agreement of sale while on the other hand defendants no.2 and 3 claimed title to the suit property and possession thereof under a registered sale deed dated 19.02.2010. It was held that the agreement of sale would not confer any right upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and registered document would prevail over unregistered document. In view of the ratio of a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Civil Revision No. 7914 of 2011 --4-- Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another 2009(7) SCC 363 , it has been held that the order of status quo is not sustainable. Therefore, the same was set aside and the injunction application was dismissed. However to meet the ends of justice and to avoid further complications, it was ordered that in case defendants no. 2 and 3 would alienate the suit property in any manner, then they would intimate the court about the proposed transfer and would also mention the factum of pendency of the suit/litigation in the proposed conveyance deed to be executed in favour of the proposed transferee. I have heard Mr. C.M. Munjal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the well reasoned order of learned trial court directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. According to him, an agreement of sale has been executed in favour of the petitioner on receipt of Rs.45,00,000/- as part sale consideration and he has got right in the suit property, which cannot be defeated by Dharam Chand, defendant no.3 by selling the land to defendants no. 2 and 3. According to him, the possession of the suit land is with the plaintiff-petitioner and, therefore, learned Appellate Court was wholly unjustified in observing that the plaintiff-petitioner has no prima- facie case in his favour. According to him, there was nothing on the record to suggest that the possession over the suit land is of defendants no. 2 and 3 . Civil Revision No. 7914 of 2011 --5-- Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that learned Appellate Court has given liberty to defendants no. 2 and 3 to alienate the suit property and has not even directed them to seek permission of the court before alienating the same. According to him, the interference by learned Appellate Court with the discretion exercised by learned trial court in making an order of status quo is unlawful and the order of the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the order of learned trial court deserves to be restored. The plaintiff-petitioner and Dharam Chand, defendant no.1 are grandsons of Devi Ditta. The agreement in favour of the plaintiff is claimed to have been executed by Dharam Chand on 29.10.2009 and the date fixed for execution of sale deed had been fixed as 19.01.2010. The sale consideration agreed for the suit property is claimed by the plaintiff to be Rs.45,62,500/-, and a substantial part of the same i.e. Rs.45,00,000/- stood paid on the date of the agreement. When more than 98% of the sale consideration stood paid on the date of agreement, I find no reason for postponing the execution and registration of the sale deed by more than two and a half months. On the other hand, the case of defendant no.1 is that he was kidnapped by his son and other relatives and his thumb impressions were obtained on blank stamp papers forcibly and the alleged agreement might have been prepared on those papers. Both the circumstances taken together would create a doubt about the genuineness of the agreement of sales. It would have been natural on the Civil Revision No. 7914 of 2011 --6-- part of prospective vendee who was paying practically the entire sale consideration to have the agreement registered. It was not done for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Even if the aforesaid aspect is ignored, the plaintiff is claiming right to the suit property under an agreement of sale, which is an unregistered document. On the other hand, the sale deed is there in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3. Vide the registered sale deed, title to the suit property has been transferred to them. Now on the one hand, the unregistered agreement of sale is said to contain a recital regarding delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and on the other hand, registered sale deed contains the very same recital of delivery of possession of the suit property in favour of defendants no.2 and 3. The preference in this regard would have to be given to the recital of the registered sale deed. For these reasons, learned Appellate Court was right in concluding that a prima-facie case is in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3 instead of the plaintiff. Learned trial court had given no reason to order status quo. Learned trial court did not even try to give due consideration to the claims as to possession of the suit property made on behalf of both the sides and just noticing that the claim has been made of possession on both the sides, status quo order has been made. Therefore, learned Appellate Court has committed no illegality in interfering with the order of learned trial court. Civil Revision No. 7914 of 2011 --7-- Learned Appellate Court was not required to order defendants no.2 and 3 to obtain permission of the court before alienating the suit property to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff and to keep him aware of alienation of the suit land. Learned Appellate Court has directed defendants no.2 and 3 to intimate the court about the proposed transfer as also to mention the factum of pendency of the suit in the conveyance deed proposed to be executed in favour of the proposed transferee. Keeping in view the fact that the approach of learned Appellate Court has been legal and balanced, interference with the judgment of learned Appellate Court dated 12.12.2011 by this court would not be justified. The revision petition is, therefore, found to have no merit and the same is dismissed. 21.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge