Civil Revision No.2908 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2908 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.5.2011 Suman Kumar Walia ......petitioner Versus Poonam Sharma .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land measuring 7 marlas 14 square feet bearing plot No.4 and part of property No.596 situated at Ajit Nagar, Jalandhar. Along with the suit, an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide order dated 9.11.2010, the trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court vide order dated 22.1.2011 allowed the appeal and restrained the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff Civil Revision No.2908 of 2011 (O&M) 2 or from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit property except in due course of law till the final disposal of the main case. Hence, the present petition by the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that R.V.Mehta had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner qua 2 kanals of land out of total land measuring 3 kanals 404 square feet. On the basis of the said agreement to sell, the petitioner had become a co-sharer in the suit property along with his vendor R.V.Mehta. The Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal, has placed reliance on the recital in the sale deed to hold that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The said recital in the sale deed could not be relied upon to hold that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The petitioner is in possession of the suit property since the year 1995. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner is basing his claim on agreement to sell dated 21.2.1995 (Annexure P-3). Since the sale deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of agreement to sell, the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell. The said suit is still pending. An agreement to sell cannot be treated as a document of title, whereas, the plaintiff has a document of title in her favour. R.V. Mehta had sold 7 marls 14 square feet of land to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 5.7.2010 (Annexure P-4). A perusal of the said sale deed reveals that the boundaries of the plot sold to the plaintiff are as under:- East : Sukhdev Singh Civil Revision No.2908 of 2011 (O&M) 3 West : Suman Kumar North : Road South : self owned. As per the sale deed, possession of the plot had been given to the purchaser. Since, the plaintiff has based her claim on the basis of document of title, the possession of the plaintiff was liable to be protected. The petitioner, on the other hand, had failed to produce on record any document to show that he was in possession of the suit property. Since, the sale deed, on the basis of agreement to sell Annexure P-3, is yet to be executed in favour of the petitioner, he cannot be described as a co-sharer in the suit property. In these circumstances, learned Appellate Court rightly restrained the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff or from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit property except in due course of law till the final disposal of the main case. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from the vice of illegality. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 03, 2011 anita