Phoolwati And Others vs Dalmir Singh @ Dalbir Singh And … on 17 August, 2009

Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2006
                                                                         -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH



                                  Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2006
                                  Date of decision: 17.08.2009


Phoolwati and others
                                                              ....Petitioners


                                    versus


Dalmir Singh @ Dalbir Singh and others
                                                            ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present: - Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate,
          for the petitioners.

          None for the respondents.

                     ***

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners filed a suit for declaration with joint possession

and for setting aside sale deed dated 28.1.2000 to be fraudulent, illegal,

null and void, ineffective and inoperative and not binding on the rights of

the petitioner, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction,

restraining the defendants from alienating any portion of the suit land,

and from dispossessing or interfering in peaceful possession of the

petitioners over the suit land.

The learned trial Court came to the conclusion, that the

petitioners have failed to prove prima facie case. It was held that the

balance of convenience was also not in their favour. Consequently,

dismissed the application.

In appeal, the injunction application was allowed by

restraining the defendant/respondents from alienating the suit land, in
Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2006
-2-

favour of any person in any manner till the decision of the suit on merits.

However, other reliefs claimed were declined.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

contends, that the learned Courts below have failed to take note that by

way of mortgage deed dated 28.2.1997, the land in dispute was

mortgaged with possession with defendants No. 1 and 2 for a sum of

Rs.4.00 lac. The mortgage was, therefore, redeemed on 28.1.2000,

and mutation sanctioned.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that, it was not possible that the land after redemption for a sum of

Rs.4.00 lac (Rupees four lac only) would be sold on the same day for

Rs.2.5 lac (Rupees two lac fifty thousand).

It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners, that it was the petitioners, who were in possession of the

land and merely for want of non-mentioning of date of redemption, the

relief could not be denied.

By way of interim order, the parties were directed to maintain

status quo. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the

respondents. In view of the facts stated above, it would be in the

interest of justice, if the order of status quo is made absolute during the

pendency of the suit. Ordered accordingly.

The learned trial Court, however, is directed to expedite the

disposal of the suit.

Revision disposed of.

(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
August 17, 2009
R.S.