C.R.No.4299 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4299 of 2008. Decided on: September 22, 2009. Smt.Rampati .. Petitioner VERSUS Satyavir Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Gandhi, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Defendant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the orders passed by Courts below allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151CPC, restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent in the capacity as prospective vendee on the basis of agreement of sale dated 26.10.2004, has filed a suit for specific performance against registered owner Chet Ram claiming . . . 1 C.R.No.4299 of 2008 that the possession of the land in dispute measuring 8 kanals stands transferred to him. The Courts below have prima facie formed an opinion that out of total sale consideration of Rs.4 lacs, a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff-respondent to Chet Ram defendant-respondent No.2. So far as the defendant-petitioner is concerned, the case of the defendant petitioner is that she has purchased 7 kanals 10 marlas vide sale deed dated 05.06.2006. The defendant-appellant claims possession on the basis of the recital in the sale deed. The Courts below prima facie formed an opinion that the plaintiff-respondent is in possession of 8 kanals as such, the defendant-petitioner has been restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of agreement of sale. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the contents of the sale deed in which the possession is shown to have been delivered to the defendant-petitioner. At the same time, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has relied upon the khasra girdawari till year 2009, which indicate that the plaintiff is in physical possession. The defendant-petitioner claims rights on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 17.08.2006 and mutation No.1408, dated 30.08.2006, which is sanctioned in her name. On the basis of the said mutation entry, it has been claimed that plaintiff-respondent No.1, does not seem to have prima facie established his possession over the property in dispute. Plaintiff-respondent No.1, Satyavir claims that on the basis of an agreement of sale deed 26.10.2004, . . . 2 C.R.No.4299 of 2008 on payment of Rs.3.10 lacs, out of a total sum of Rs.4 lacs regarding 8 kanals of land in dispute, the vacant possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff but when the defendant became dishonest, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction to restrain defendant Chet Ram from selling the land. On 06.04.2007, an interim order was passed in favour of the defendant but the High Court had modified the order permitting the petitioner to file written statement. Naib Tehsildar was appointed as a local commissioner, who had visited the spot on 31.05.2008 and found plaintiff Satyavir in possession of the land in dispute. Both the Courts below have relied upon the report and prima facie formed an opinion that on payment of major portion of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.3.10 lacs out of a total amount of Rs.4 lacs, the possession of the suit land had been delivered. So far as the rights of the subsequent purchaser vis-a-vis the plaintiff, who had allegedly entered into possession on the basis of agreement of sale are concerned, the same are to be finally determined on the basis of the evidence, which is to be produced by both the parties. A perusal of the report dated 18.08.2006, prepared by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, prima facie establishes the possession of the plaintiff-respondent. Besides this the khasra girdawaries also reflect his possession. The plaintiff-respondent has been able to prima facie establish his possession pursuant to an agreement of sale. The effect of sale deed in favour of defendant-petitioner vis-a-vis the . . . 3 C.R.No.4299 of 2008 rights of plaintiff-respondent No.1, will be determined on the basis of appreciation of evidence. No ground is made out for interference in the orders passed by the Courts below. The revision petition is dismissed. It is specifically mentioned that any observation made by the Courts below or by this Court will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the defendant- petitioner on merits of the case during trial. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 22, 2009. rka . . . 4