Civil Revision No. 4692 of 2009 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4692 of 2009
Date of Decision: 20.8.2009
Balwant Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Amarjeet Singh and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri B.R. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The plaintiffs are in revision aggrieved against the order passed
by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby an application for grant of
temporary injunction, was dismissed.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land measuring 55 kanals
19 marlas was sold to the defendants by a registered sale deed dated
4.10.2004. The house constructed thereon was not sold to the defendants, in
respect of which the defendants have executed a writing on the date of
agreement to sell dated 4.10.2004 itself, that another sum of Rs.6 lacs will
be paid before the possession is delivered to the vendees. The plaintiffs
were also permitted to stay in the house upto 13.12.2005.
The learned trial Court granted ad-interim injunction, but the
first Appellate Court has set aside the same holding that once the land has
Civil Revision No. 4692 of 2009 (2)
been sold to the defendants, it will include the superstructure raised therein
unless there was a specific stipulation in the sale deed to this effect. Thus, it
was found that the entire property stands conveyed to the defendants and
thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled to ad-interim injunction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that
a separate writing was executed on the date of the execution of the sale deed
itself, whereby the defendants have agreed to pay Rs.6 lacs for the
superstructure. Therefore, unless such amount is paid to the plaintiffs, the
defendants are not entitled to take possession of the superstructure.
The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners
is not tenable. If the superstructure was not sold at the time of execution of
the sale deed, it should have found mention in the sale deed and not in a
separate document. The document relied upon by the petitioner cannot
override the terms of the sale which conveys titles of the land measuring 55
kansl 19 marlas to the defendants. The superstructure is attached to earth,
therefore, it would be deemed to have been sold to the defendants.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity
in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
20.8.2009
ds