IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3979 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 05, 2009 Smt. Rajni Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Animesh Tyagi and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. By a common order, the Court intends to dispose of the present revision as well as Civil Revision Nos. 3980 and 3981 of 2009 as all of them have arisen out of identical declaratory suits filed by the petitioner in respect of three sales deeds executed on 25.2.1987. However, for facility of reference, the facts are taken from the present revision. While praying for the relief of declaration to the effect that she was owner of the suit land and the sale deed dated 25.2.1987 said to have been executed in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit property was illegal and void, and also for grant of injunction so as to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner or creating any charge on it or transferring the same, the plaintiff-petitioner pleaded that one Kamlawati was the owner in possession of the suit property earlier. Said Kamlawati adopted the plaintiff, being her brother's Civil Revision No. 3979 of 2009 -2- daughter. After the death of Kamlawati, the plaintiff became owner of the suit land. During her life time, her mother executed power of attorney on 27.4.1985 in her favour besides a lease deed dated 29.4.1985 in favour of the plaintiff's husband for a period of 99 years, who came in possession of the suit property. Some dispute arose over the suit property as the villagers tried to dispossess the plaintiff's-husband. She contacted Pushkar Dutt Tyagi, father of defendant-Animesh Tyagi, who suggested her that she should execute a formal sale deed in their favour for putting the controversy at rest as the villagers would have then no objection, thinking that the plaintiff had divested herself of the title of the property. Accordingly, three sale deeds were executed on 25.2.1987. In fact, no formal sale was effected and it was intended to be only a paper transaction. However, the intention of the defendants, in whose favour the sale deeds were executed, became dishonest, who started claiming themselves to be the owner. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration and permanent injunction. While opposing the suit, the defendants pleaded that the suit land was purchased from the plaintiff against valid sale consideration. Moreover, the suit was time barred. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for the grant of ad interim injunction so as to restrain the defendants-respondents from alienating the suit property to anybody else was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.9.2007. Even the appeal against the said order was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 14.8.2008. She is now Civil Revision No. 3979 of 2009 -3- before this Court by way of revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The case, as set up by the plaintiff-petitioner, was that the sale deeds were only paper transactions and no consideration was passed under the same. However, as is apparent from the record, the sale deeds were executed before the Sub Registrar and there was specific recital regarding passing of the consideration. It is not the case of the plaintiff that any fraud was played upon her by the defendants for getting the sale deeds executed in their favour. As there was no prima facie material to say that the sale deeds were executed without consideration, learned Courts below rightly declined the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff for granting ad interim injunction so as to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property till the final decision of the case. In view of the above, there is no merit in any of the three revision petitions. They are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below, while passing the impugned orders and by this Court also while disposing of the present revision, shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 05, 2009 JUDGE satish