Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS DJ No. 278/2023 1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, DISTRICT
JUDGE-04, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI.
CS No. 278/2023
CNR No: DLNT01-003882-2023
Kamlesh & Anr.
…… Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Dharmender & Anr.
.......Defendants
Order/22.05.2024
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.
2. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration,
permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant
stating inter alia that they are the owners in possession of
ancestral agricultural holdings situated within the revenue estate
of Village Bankner and Lampur, Delhi and defendant no.1 took
the benefit of illiteracy of their mother and persuaded her to sell
the said agricultural holdings and entered into a bayana
-- 1 of 5 --
CS DJ No. 278/2023 2 of 5
agreement with respect to the same and thereafter fraudulently
and cleverly procured the sale deeds which have no value in the
eyes of law.
3. By way of present application, plaintiff has sought to
restrain the defendant no.1, his agents, servants etc from
alienating, transferring and creating third party interest in the
suit property inter alia on the ground that they are looking after
and cultivating the land in question and are in possession of the
same and the defendant no.1 has fraudulently got executed the
sale deed from their late mother without even paying the sale
consideration amount.
4. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of defendant
no.1 that during her lifetime Smt. Rukmani had told the
defendant that after the execution of sale deed dated 03.11.2020,
her daughters had started quarreling with her and told the
defendant that her daughters had forcibly taken the cheques with
them mentioned in the sale deed. She told the defendant to pay
the money to her in cash but without disclosing about the same
to her daughters since she was apprehending that there would be
a quarrel in the family over the distribution of money. The
defendant gave her the entire sale consideration in cash in
installments, however, before she could repossess the cheques
from her daughters, she left for her heavenly abode. It is further
-- 2 of 5 --
CS DJ No. 278/2023 3 of 5
submitted that defendant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury
if the present application is allowed and the application deserves
to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have
carefully gone through the record.
6. By way of present applications under Order XXXIX Rule
1 & 2 CPC, plaintiffs have prayed to restrain the defendant no.1,
his agents, servants etc from selling, alienating, transferring or
parting with or creating any third party interest in the suit
property.
7. The basic rationale for imposing an injunction is to
safeguard a person's or property's interests in the case till the
ultimate verdict is made. The factors which are to be taken into
account while imposing such an injunction are that whenever
plaintiff has a prima facie case, if the proportion of advantage
favors the plaintiff and the plaintiff might experience irreversible
injury before the judgment is issued.
8. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant got the sale
deeds dated 03.11.2020 and 04.11.2020 executed fraudulently
from their mother who was illiterate and even did not pay the
sale consideration amount as mentioned in the sale deed.
-- 3 of 5 --
CS DJ No. 278/2023 4 of 5
Defence of the defendant no.1 is that he has paid the entire sale
consideration amount in cash in installments with respect to the
suit property. The defendant no.1 does not dispute the
relationship of plaintiffs with Smt. Rukmani.
9. The relationship of the plaintiffs with late Smt. Rukmani
from who defendant alleged to have purchased the land in
question, has been admitted on record. The plaintiffs have made
specific averment that suit property is the agricultural land
holdings which are being looked after and maintained by the
plaintiffs and are taking Rabi and Kharif crops from the said land
though it is joint holdings. Under such circumstances, if the
interim protection is not given to the plaintiffs, same would
result in multiplicity of litigations. Further, the defence taken by
the defendant that he has made payment of entire sale
consideration amount in cash to Smt. Rukmani is required to be
proved by leading cogent evidence and by cross examining the
plaintiff witnesses.
10. Perusal of plaint and documents shows that there is prima
facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, balance of convenience also
lies in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs would suffer
irreparable loss and injury if the interim relief is not granted. In
these circumstances, application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 &
2 CPC stands allowed and the defendant no.1, his agents,
-- 4 of 5 --
CS DJ No. 278/2023 5 of 5
servants, associates etc are restrained from alienating,
transferring and creating third party interest in the joint
agricultural holding pertaining to 1/9th share of Late Risale @
Risal Singha and Smt. Rukmani, situated within the revenue
estate of Village Bankner and Lampur, Tehsil Narela, Delhi till
disposal of the present suit/further orders. The defendant no.1 is
further restrained from getting registered any document in
respect of land forming part of sale deed regsitered on
03.11.2020 and 04.11.2020 till disposal of the present
suit/further orders.
11. Nothing mentioned herein above shall tantamount to be an
expression of opinion on the merits of this case.
12. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Announced in Open Court
On 22.05.2024.
(Kishor Kumar)
DJ-04, North, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/22.05.2024
-- 5 of 5 --