RSA No. 4767 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4767 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.4.2011. Smt. Pali Devi & others .......Appellants Vs. Rajiv Kumar & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that they had purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 7.1.2003 from defendant No.1 for a consideration of `. 6,64,000/-. After the registration of the sale deed, plaintiffs came in possession of the suit property. Defendants had no concern with the suit property but they were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. The sale deed, alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs, was a result of fraud. RSA No. 4767 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Defendants No. 3 to 5 had filed a suit against defendant No.1 restraining him from selling the suit property. On 7.1.2003, the civil court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to property in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.2008, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, in any manner. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal, filed by defendants No. 2 to 5, by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants No. 2 to 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs had purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 7.1.2003. The plaintiffs had paid ` 6,64,000/- towards consideration to defendant No.1 vide pay order dated 7.1.2003. Defendant No.1 RSA No. 4767 of 2009 (O&M) -3- is the husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendants no. 3 to 5. Defendants No. 3 to 5 had filed a suit against their father seeking injunction that defendant No.1 be restrained from alienating the suit land. In the said suit, Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide order dated 7.1.2003 directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to property in dispute. Despite the passing of the said order, defendant no.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The fact that defendant No.1 had violated the order, passed by the civil court dated 7.1.2003 is relevant inter se the defendants. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, had purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 for consideration. Plaintiffs are not party to the suit, filed by defendants No. 3 to 5 against their father-defendant No.1. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 18, 2011 Gurpreet