Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Batra vs Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana on 6 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MCA No. 1279/2016
CNR No. DLCT030029672015
In the matter of:-
Sh. Ashok Kumar Batra,
S/o Sh. Nanak Chand,
R/o House No. 39,
Sheetal Apartments, Sector-14,
Rohini, Delhi-110085. ...Appellant
VERSUS
1. Sh. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana,
S/o Sh. Mahender Choudhary,
R/o House No. 1/16,
Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007.
2. Sh. Gyanendra Singh,
R/o A-1, Block Extn.,
Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110084.
3. Sh. Sudesh Yadav,
S/o Sh. Hari Singh Yadav,
R/o House No. C-228,
Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085.
4. The SHO,
P.S. Burari,
Delhi. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 30.04.2015
Reserved for Judgment : 29.07.2024
Date of Decision : 06.09.2024
MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 1 of 15
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal impugns the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the learned Ld. Civil Judge-09, Central, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) was dismissed. The appellant herein was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants therein. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature in the main suit.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present adjudication are that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent/defendants. It is stated in the plaint presented before the Ld. Trial Court that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the plot/agricultural land measuring 1 bigha out of Khasra No.19/4/1(1-00) situated in the revenue estate of Village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi, which he has purchased from its previous owner Sh. Sheo Chand on 11.09.2011 vide registered sale deed dated 11.11.2011. That the plaintiff is a non resident Indian (NRI) and is residing in New York and used to visit India from time to time to look after his properties in India and to meet his friends, family members and the relatives. That the peaceful vacant possession of the abovesaid plot was handed over to the plaintiff on 11.11.2011 and since then the plaintiff is in possession of the said plot and the said land is duly mutated in the revenue records. That the previous owner Sh. Sheo Chand was the owner/bhumidar of the abovesaid plot/land measuring 2 bighas and 3 biswas. That Sh. Sheo Chand had sold 1 bigha of MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 2 of 15 land to the plaintiff and remaining portion was sold to one Sh. Ram Avtar and he never sold the abovesaid land to any other person except as mentioned above. That some persons have forged and fabricated some documents regarding 300 sq.yards of plot on the abovesaid land and wanted to garb the said land illegally. That when the Sh. Sheo Chand came to know about the said fact, he made a complaint to the S.H.O., P.S. Burari, Delhi on 17.12.2012.
3. It is further averred that in the first week of November, 2013, the plaintiff was filling his above said plot with mud/malwa and has put 8-9 dumpers of mud/malwa in the said plot and was further in the process of filling the said plot with mud/malwa. That during the said period i.e. on 26/17.1.2013, police officials of P.S. Burari, came to the spot and restrained the plaintiff not to do so. That during the said period, the defendant No.1 alongwith his other associates came to the abovesaid plot and forcefully put one container in front of the plot of the plaintiff over the road which created obstruction and stopped the ingress and egress of the plaintiff over the said plot. That the plaintiff objected the abovesaid act of the defendant No.1 but was of no use, having no other alternative, the plaintiff called the police but no action has been taken by the police against the defendant No.1, because of the reason that the defendant No.1 is close relative of one Mr. Raj Pal Rana, a BJP leader of the area. That a police case was also registered against the defendant No.1 on the complaints of the plaintiff vide FIR No.129/2014 under section 420/467/468/ 471/120B of IPC.
4. It is further averred that defendant No.2, in the month of May 2014, started putting fencing illegally over 600 sq. MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 3 of 15 yds. of land, out of Khasra No.19/4/1 Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi i.e. on the land belonging to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff was in New York at that time and when he came to know about the said illegal acts of the defendant No.2, he immediately made an email to the SHO, P.S. Burari, Delhi. That the plaintiff also lodged report on 09.06.2014 to the SHO, P.S. Burari, Delhi in that regard, but all in vain. That the SHO/ defendant No.4 has his hands in glove with the other defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their illegal acts and designs and all of them have connived with each other and wants to grab the land of the plaintiff by illegal means. That the defendant No.3 is the property dealer in the area and has close relation with the SHO. That thereafter, on 16.06.2014, the plaintiff made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi against the defendants and their associates regarding FIR No.129/14 as mentioned above, but no action has been taken on the said complaint. That the Gram Sabha Burari had made a complaint against the plaintiff and on the said complaint, proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff under section 81 of the D.L.R. Act 1954. That the said proceedings were decided by the Revenue Assistant (Civil Lines) Delhi vide Order dated 10.04.2013, directing the plaintiff to convert the said land back into agriculture purpose within three months from the date of Order i.e. 10.04.2013. That the said Order was however an ex- parte order as the plaintiff was not present in India and when the plaintiff came to know about the said proceedings, he filed a reply before the Ld. SDM, Civil Lines, Delhi on 03.01.2014. That the Ld. SDM then passed order dated 02.05.2014 extending the time of converting land into agricultural land of Khasra No.19/4/1 (1-0) situated in Village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi, MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 4 of 15 for two months from 01.05.2014 to 30.06.2014 with the direction to furnish the compliance report alongwith photograph after the said period.
5. It is further averred that the plaintiff was having reasonable apprehension that while complying with the order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the SDM Civil Lines, Delhi, the defendants can go to any extent to harm the life and liberty of the plaintiff and to grab the land in question, so the plaintiff moved an application on 16.06.2014 before DPC, Civil Lines, Delhi, seeking police protection for the compliance of Order dated 2.5.2014 passed by the Ld. SDM and the copies of the same were sent to the ACP (North) and SHO, P.S. Burari, Delhi, but nothing has been done till date by the above said officials. Hence, the plaintiff was unable to comply with the said order. That the defendants have no right, title or authority in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful possession of the land in question belongs to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has reasonable apprehension that the defendants can go to any extent to forcibly grab the land of the plaintiff.
6. It is further averred that the defendant No.1 filed his written statement and inter-alia alleged that he had purchased 300 sq. yds vide notarized sale documents dated 11.12.2012 from Sh. Anil Mittal. That the defendant No.1 further alleged that Sh. Sheo Chand sold 300 sq.yds. land to one Sh. Inder Chand Jain vide sale documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Will dated 01.02.2011. That the defendant No.1 also alleged that Sh. Inder Chand Jain sold the said 300 sq. yds. to Sh. Anil Mittal vide sale documents dated 23.09.2012. That Sh. Sheo Chand had not sold the said land to Sh. Inder MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 5 of 15 Chand Jain, rather sold 1 bigha land to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed and also handed over peaceful vacant possession of the same, in which the plaintiff is having his possession till date. Therefore, the alleged sale documents dated 1.2.2011, 23.09.2012 and 11.12.2012 are forged, fabricated and manipulated with ulterior motive to grab the property of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit. The plaintiff had sought the following relief in the suit:
"(i) Pass a Decree of Declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring the Sale documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Will dated 1.2.2011, 23.09.2012 and 11.12.2012 as illegal, null and void ab-initio and accordingly the same be declared as cancelled."
a) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their associates, assigns, representatives, heirs interfering, etc. from grabbing and encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff i.e. land measuring 1 bigha out of Khasra No.19/4/1(1-00) situated in the revenue estate of Village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi, as shown in Red Colour in the site plan and also not to threat the plaintiff and also not to create any third party interest in the said land in any manner whatsoever;
b) Pass a Decree of Mandatory Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants defendants, thereby directing the their heirs, officials, assigns, nominees etc. and SHO, P.S. Burari, Delhi, to remove the illegal fencing/boundary and also to remove the said containers/ cabins/other materials put in front of the plot of the plaintiff
c) grant cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;
d) any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice."
7. The plaintiff has sought the following relief in their interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that an exparte ad- interim injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining the MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 6 of 15 Defendants, their associates, assigns, representatives, heirs etc. from interfering, grabbing and encroaching upon the land of the Plaintiff i.e. land measuring 1 Bigha out of Khasra No.19/4/1 (1-00), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi, as shown in Red Colour in the Site Plan and also not to threat the Plaintiff and also not to create any third party interest in the said land in any manner whatsoever; till the disposal of the present suit, in the interest of justice;
Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants in the interest of justice.
8. The defendant No.1 had filed his written statement stating therein that Sh. Sheo Chand out of his total land comprising in Khasra No.19/4/1 sold and transferred the land ad- measuring 300 sq.yds. (45'x60') situated in the area of village Burari Delhi abadi known as Main Burari Road, Jharoda Majra, Burari Delhi to Sh. Inder Chand Jain. That Sh. Sheo Chand executed General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Deed of Will, Possession Letter all dated 01.02.2011. That Sh. Inder Chand Jain having purchased the aforesaid land sold and transferred the said land measuring 300 sq.yds. to Sh. Anil Mittal by execution of documents Attorney, viz. General Agreement Power to of Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, possession Letter and Deed of Will all dated 23.09.2012 for consideration amount of Rs.15 Lacs. That physical possession of this land was handed over by Sh. Inder Chand Jain to Sh. Anil Mittal. That Sh. Anil Mittal sold and transferred the said plot to the defendant No.1 by execution of documents viz. General Power Attorney, Agreement to of Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, Deed of Will all dated 11.12.2012 and actual possession was also handed over to defendant No.1.
9. It is further averred that after transferring of 300 MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 7 of 15 sq.yds. land out of entire land held by Sh. Sheo Chand in this Khasra, he was no more competent to transfer said part of the land to the plaintiff or to any other person. That the alleged sale deed executed by Sh. Sheo Chand in favour of the plaintiff on 11.11.2011 in respect of property ad-measuring 300 sq. yds. was null and void. That in the face of the claim of the defendant No.1 and in the face of the documents being claimed to have been executed by Sh. Sheo Chand, original owner of the suit property, the plaintiff was required to file a suit for declaration in respect of the documents executed by Sh. Sheo Chand and thus, the suit is not maintainable being barred by provisions of section 34 and 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act.
10. The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff was aware about the documents relied upon by the defendant No. 1 but the plaintiff did not challenge the same in the suit or in any other proceedings. It was also observed by Ld. Trial Court that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff does not describe the location, dimension and boundaries of one bigha land out of two bighas and three biswa land which was owned by the Sh. Sheo Chand. It was ultimately held by Ld. Trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to establish the identity of the suit property.
11. The impugned order is assailed on the ground that the suit property is a piece of land meant for agricultural purposes and it has been described in para No. 1 of the plaint and also in the site plan filed on record. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the necessary description of the suit property sufficient to identify the same by boundaries, number and record of settlement survey as per the revenue department was provided MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 8 of 15 in the plaint as well as in the site plan. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Sh. Sheo Chand sold one bigha land to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed and remaining one bigha three biswa land to Sh. Ram Avtar vide registered sale deed and there was no land left to be sold to defendant No. 1. That the plaintiff was also recorded owner in the revenue records. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the defendants have failed to bring any admissible evidence on record to dispute the claim made by the plaintiff. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that when a person is in possession of immovable property and interference in his peaceful enjoyment is made, a simplicitor suit for injunction is maintainable. That Ld. Trial Court wrongly assumed that there was a dispute of identity of the suit property as the defendant No. 1 has not disputed the identity of the suit property. That Ld. Trial Court erred in considering the inadmissible documents of defendant No. 1.
12. I heard the arguments advanced and perused the record.
13. Admittedly, the plaintiff has a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2011 in his favour. The plaintiff has claimed one bigha land in khasra No. 19/4/1 in the village Jharoda Majra, Burari which he has claimed to have been purchased from Sh. Sheo Chand who was the previous owner of the land. It is not in dispute that Sh. Sheo Chand was the person from whom both the parties are claiming title to the land in question. Defendant No. 1 is claiming to have purchased 300 sq. yds. land in the khasra No. 19/4/1 from Sh. Anil Mittal vide agreement to sell, GPA, Will, affidavit etc. dated 11.12.2012. As per the defendant No. 1, Sh. Anil Mittal purchased the land from Sh. Inder Singh vide MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 9 of 15 agreement to sell, GPA, Will, affidavit etc. dated 23.09.2012 and Sh. Inder Singh has purchased the said land from Sh. Sheo Chand vide agreement to sell, GPA, Will, affidavit etc. dated 01.02.2011. A combined reading of section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and section 17 of Registration Act, 1908, makes it clear that immovable property having value more than Rs.100/- can only be transferred through a registered sale deed and not by any other document. A power of attorney does not create any interest in an immovable property unless a sale deed is executed in pursuance of the power of attorney. In Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title, or interest in an immovable property. The Power of Attorney is a creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of the grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee.
21. In-State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata 2005 (12) SCC 77 this Court held:
"13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favor of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds, and things are done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience.
Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 10 of 15 provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers- of-Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the done to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with an interest, it is revocable. The done in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject, of course, to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the done.
An attorney holder may, however, execute a deed of conveyance in the exercise of the power granted under a power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor.
Scope of Will
14. A will is the testament of the testator. It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing the distribution two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the lifetime of the testator. It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not be worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it. If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked. (see Sections 69 and 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925). Registration of a will does not make it any more effective.
Conclusion
15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank 94 (2001) DLT 841 that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintended misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
16. We, therefore, reiterate that immovable MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 11 of 15 property can be legally and lawfully transferred/ conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales.
17. It has been submitted that making declaration that GPA sales and SA/GPA/WILL transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer is likely to create hardship to a large number of persons who have entered into such transactions, and they should be given sufficient time to regularize the transactions by obtaining deeds of conveyance. It is also submitted that this decision should be made applicable prospectively to avoid hardship."
In Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi, Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-7528 of 2012, dated 02.06.2023, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Courts as under:
12. It goes without saying that the power of attorney executed by the defendant-appellant is of no consequence as on the strength of said power of attorney, neither sale deed has been executed nor any action pursuant thereof has been taken by the power of attorney holder which may confer title upon the plaintiff-respondent. Non-execution of any document by the general power of attorney holder consequent to it renders the said general power of attorney useless.
13. Similarly, the will dated 10.04.2002 executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is meaningless as the will, if any, comes into effect only after the death of the executant and not before it. It has no force till the testator or the person making it dies. The said stage has not arrived in the present case and, therefore, even the aforesaid will in no way confers any right upon the plaintiff-respondent.
14. In connection with the general power of attorney and the will so executed, the practice, if any, prevalent in any State or MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 12 of 15 the High Court recognizing these documents to be documents of title or documents conferring right in any immovable property is in violation of the statutory law. Any such practice or tradition prevalent would not override the specific provisions of law which require execution of a document of title or transfer and its registration so as to confer right and title in an immovable property of over Rs.100/- in value. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Veer Bala Gulati Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. following the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court itself in the case of Asha M. Jain Vs. Canara Bank and Ors. holding that the agreement to sell with payment of full consideration and possession along with irrevocable power of attorney and other ancillary documents is a transaction to sell even though there may not be a sale deed, are of no help to the plaintiff-respondent inasmuch as the view taken by the Delhi High Court is not in consonance with the legal position which emanates from the plain reading of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this regard, reference may be had to two other decisions of the Delhi High Court in Imtiaz Ali Vs. Nasim Ahmed and G. Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority which inter-alia observe that an agreement to sell or the power of attorney are not documents of transfer and as such the right title and interest of an immovable property do not stand transferred by mere execution of the same unless any document as contemplated under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is executed and is got registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The decision of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. also deprecates the transfer of immovable property through sale agreement, general power of attorney and will instead of registered conveyance deed.
14. It is settled law that the prima facie case required to be established for the grant of interim injunction should not be confused with prima facie title which has to be established during the trial and only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and decision on merits. In this regard, reliance is placed on Dalpat Kumar Vs. Prahlad Singh, 1992 1 SCC 719. In Dalpat Kumar (supra), it was held that the exercise of grant of interim injunction is subject to the Court satisfying that (i) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the Court, there is probability of the applicant being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff; (ii) the Court's interference is MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 13 of 15 necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (iii) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it.
15. While the relief of temporary injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and encroaching upon the land claimed by the plaintiff, is in the nature of final relief and in the facts of the present case where both parties are claiming to be in possession, can only be granted after conclusion of trial, the relief for restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in the land in question could have been granted to the plaintiff by the Ld. Trial Court. As already stated above, the plaintiff is relying upon a registered sale deed while the documents of defendant No. 1 are only notarized. The plaintiff has been able to raise a substantial question which would be determined during the trial.
The identification of the land claimed by the plaintiff is an issue which is a matter of trial between the parties. The land has been described by its khasra number and the site plan was also filed by the plaintiff. The sufficiency of the material relied upon by the plaintiff can only be gone into at the time of appreciating the evidence. In the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has been able to establish a prima facie case for preservation of the the land which is the subject matter of the dispute till the dispute between the parties is finally determined by the Ld. Trial Court. Balance of convenience also lie in favour of the plaintiff as he has a registered sale deed in his favour and creation of third party MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 14 of 15 interest in the suit land during the pendency of the suit would adversely affect the plaintiff and also gives rise of multiplicity of the proceedings which would not be desirable.
16. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC is partly allowed to the extent that the defendants shall not create any third party interest in the suit land i.e. land falling under khasra No. 19/4/1, Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi till the pendency of the suit.
The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of the judgment. Digitally signed by PRANAV Announced in open Court PRANAV JOSHI Date:
on this 06th Day of September, 2024 JOSHI 2024.09.06 17:23:14 +0530 (PRANAV JOSHI) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI MCA No. 1279/2016 Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Rana Page No. 15 of 15