Full Text
Translation output
A-62
% 13.07.20 11
Present: Mr. Sunil Chauhdary, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM(M) No.786/2011 & CM Nos.12537-3812011
This is an unfortunate dispute between the two sisters who are both children of late deceased Charan Singh. The plaintiff has claimed absolute right in the suit property i.e. land measuring 10 bigha 18 biswas bearing Khasra No. 3/15 situated in Village, Palla, Delhi; her claim is based on a registered sale deed dated
05.12.1986. The defendant in the written statement has disputed the claim of the plaintiff; her contention is that this sale deed is ineffective and has not conferred any right, title or interest upon the plaintiff; it is however admitted that the land is an agricultural land; the defendant has admitted in her written statement that the plaintiff and the defendant are joint owners of the suit land. It is also not in dispute that the suit land has not been partitioned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant is aggrieved by the impugned order; his contention is that while dismissing the application (para 8 of the impugned order) under Order 39 Rules 1
& 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the
'Code') at the same time the Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo; an illegality has been committed by the Court.
The impugned order has been perused. The documentary
2011:DHC:18924 evidence of both the parties and respective contentions of the parties raised by them had been noted; the law on injunction had also been dealt with in detail. The Court was of a prima .-facie view that both the parties had not been able to prove their exclusive possession in the suit land; suit land has not been partitioned; balance of convenience was also equally divided; in these circumstances, the question of irreparable loss was not considered by the Court; status quo had been ordered of the suit land and both the parties had been directed not to create any third party interest in the suit land.
Under order 39 Rule 1 of the Code, the Court may grant a temporary injunction; the primary purpose as is evident from this statutory provision is to ensure that the property in dispute is not permitted to be wasted, damaged or alienated by any party or wrongfully sold. The purpose of the grant of a temporary injunction is for the purpose of staying and preventing wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property and the
Court may pass any order as it may think fit qua the suit property.
Although in para 8, the Court has dismissed the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code but nothing prevented the Court keeping in view the present factual scenario to pass an order on status quo. Merely because the order is not very happily worded; it does not tantamount to an illegality. The
(/' impugned order warrants no interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 13, 2011
% 13.07.20 11
Present: Mr. Sunil Chauhdary, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM(M) No.786/2011 & CM Nos.12537-3812011
This is an unfortunate dispute between the two sisters who are both children of late deceased Charan Singh. The plaintiff has claimed absolute right in the suit property i.e. land measuring 10 bigha 18 biswas bearing Khasra No. 3/15 situated in Village, Palla, Delhi; her claim is based on a registered sale deed dated
05.12.1986. The defendant in the written statement has disputed the claim of the plaintiff; her contention is that this sale deed is ineffective and has not conferred any right, title or interest upon the plaintiff; it is however admitted that the land is an agricultural land; the defendant has admitted in her written statement that the plaintiff and the defendant are joint owners of the suit land. It is also not in dispute that the suit land has not been partitioned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant is aggrieved by the impugned order; his contention is that while dismissing the application (para 8 of the impugned order) under Order 39 Rules 1
& 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the
'Code') at the same time the Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo; an illegality has been committed by the Court.
The impugned order has been perused. The documentary
2011:DHC:18924 evidence of both the parties and respective contentions of the parties raised by them had been noted; the law on injunction had also been dealt with in detail. The Court was of a prima .-facie view that both the parties had not been able to prove their exclusive possession in the suit land; suit land has not been partitioned; balance of convenience was also equally divided; in these circumstances, the question of irreparable loss was not considered by the Court; status quo had been ordered of the suit land and both the parties had been directed not to create any third party interest in the suit land.
Under order 39 Rule 1 of the Code, the Court may grant a temporary injunction; the primary purpose as is evident from this statutory provision is to ensure that the property in dispute is not permitted to be wasted, damaged or alienated by any party or wrongfully sold. The purpose of the grant of a temporary injunction is for the purpose of staying and preventing wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property and the
Court may pass any order as it may think fit qua the suit property.
Although in para 8, the Court has dismissed the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code but nothing prevented the Court keeping in view the present factual scenario to pass an order on status quo. Merely because the order is not very happily worded; it does not tantamount to an illegality. The
(/' impugned order warrants no interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 13, 2011
JUDGMENT