Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tiloka Ram vs Bhikha Ram & Anr on 11 April, 2012
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012-Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
Judgment dt: 11/4/2012
1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
JUDGMENT
Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 11th April, 2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
REPORTABLE
Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the appellant-defendant.
Mr. J.R.Patel, for the respondent-plaintiff.
BY THE COURT:
1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant no.2 Tiloka Ram against the plaintiff Bhikha Ram and defendant No.1 Saro Devi being aggrieved by the order dated 16/2/2012 passed by the Learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra in Civil Misc. Case No. 3/2011 partly allowing the temporary injunction application of the respondent plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and directing the defendants to maintain status quo of the suit property, which is a plot of land measuring 100'x50' situated in District Barmer.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant defendant, Mr. Dinesh Mehta, submitted that the plot of land in question was purchased by S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012-Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 2/8 registered sale deed by the appellant defendant Tiloka Ram on 18/8/1998 for a sum of Rs. 9285/- from the defendant no.1 - Smt. Saro Devi, whereas, the plaintiff Bikha Ram claimed the same plot of land under an agreement to sell executed by the defendant no.1 Smt.Saro Devi in his favour on 23/6/1998 for a sum of Rs. 2,51,000/- under which agreement, a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- is said to have been paid in cash as advance to the said defendant no.1 Smt. Saro Devi. He submitted that under a registered sale deed dated 18/8/1998, the appellant defendant no.2, Tiloka Ram, had also received possession of the said plot and started raising construction as a registered owner thereof and in the present suit filed after 11 years of the alleged agreement for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed by plaintiff - Bhika Ram, who is close relative of appellant Tiloka Ram, being his uncle, in which the present temporary injunction application was partly allowed by the learned court below and the appellant defendant is restrained to raise construction and maintain status quo of the suit property and being aggrieved of the same, the appellant has prefered the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant defendant relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kante vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. - (2010) 2 SCC 77 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the interim order was passed preventing respondent 10 from carrying out construction activities over disputed S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012-Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 3/8 land, respondent 10 would suffer irreparable loss and injury as he would not be able to utilise property till suit was disposed of, which could take several years at original stage as well as at appellate stage and in view of such facts and circumstances sufficient protection was afforded by the order of the High Court restraining the respondent 10 from transferring/alienating the disputed property or creating third party right therein during the pendency of suit and the refusal order of the High Court from restraining the respondent 10 from carrying out construction activity over the disputed land was not liable to be interfered with.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the present appellant also would not alienate the suit property further so as to create third party rights but he cannot be prevented from raising construction over the plot of land of which he is registered owner as against plaintiff, who only claims the said land under an agreement to sell purportedly executed in his favour in the year 1998.
5. On the other hand, Mr. J.R.Patel, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent no.1 relying upon the various case laws urged that the status quo order granted by the learned court below is perfectly just and proper in view of rival claims of the parties over the same plot of land and consequently the present appeal of the defendant appellant is liable to be dismissed.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012-Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 4/8
6. The gist of case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is as under:-
(A) On the point of jurisdiction of first appellate court in the matter of temporary injunction - the first appellate court should not interfere in the order of the trial court unless it comes to the conclusion that order of the trial court is arbitrary or perverse or capricious or a disregard of sound principals without considering relevant record & where first appellate court interferes with trial court's order in disregard of said factors, its own order becomes without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.
(i) Director, Vidhya Bhawan Society, Udaipur vs. Niranjan Jha - RLW 1987 (1) 491
(ii) Sonu Babu Bhambid & Ors. vs. Dream Developers & ors.- 2009 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 412
(iii) Skyline Education Institute (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. S.L.Vaswani & Anr. - AIR 2010 SC 3221.
(B) On the issue that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the trial court merely on the ground that another view was possible on the point & The first appellate court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial court, simply because, it was reasonably possible to take another view on the facts of the case. The appellate court has S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012-Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 5/8 substituted its own discretion substituting the judicial discretion exercised by the trial court.
Smt. Lalithakshi Annadanagouda vs. Sadashivappa Basappa Patil & anr. - AIR 1984 Kan. 74.
(C) On the point of prima facie case, where in an application for temporary injunction, if there is a dispute of facts and such facts are in issue, it is fair to hold that there is a prima facie case;
1991 (1) CCC 161 DB (D) On the point of judicial approach in the matter of temporary injunction - it is the fundamental principle of justice that status quo order should ordinarily be not disturbed during pendency of the suit;
Exotique Apparels, Smt. Indira Bali vs. Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - 1996 (4) CCC 394 (Raj.) (E) On the point of judicial approach in the matter of interim injuction order should be to maintain status quo unless there are strong and exceptional reasons to alter the status quo;
(i) Suresh Sopan Kadam & Ors. vs. Jagannath Genu Kadam & Ors. - 1993(1) CCC 53.
(ii) Dalpat Kumar & anr. vs. Prahlad Singth & ors. - 1992 SC & FB 108
(iii) 2006 (2) WLC (SC) 460 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012-Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 6/8 (F) On the point that in a suit for specific performance, the court should protect the property in dispute from alienation and/or change nature and character during the suit otherwise suit would be rendered practically infrcutous;
(i) M/s Julien Educational Trust vs. Sourendra Kumar Roy & Ors. - 2010(1) CCC 108 (SC)
(ii) Maharwal Khewaji Trust vs. Baldev Dass - 2005(1) WLC (SC) Civil 223
(iii) Ashwin Kumar K Patel vs. Upendra J Ptel & ors. - 1999 DNJ (SC) 207
7. Having heard the learned counsels and after going through the impugned order & judgments cited at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that instead of blanket status quo order, learned court below ought to have granted temporary injunction in the same terms as was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kante (supra). The registered owner of the plot of land certainly has better and perfect title in comparison to any other person, who claims title under an agreement to sell executed in his favour. The validity and veracity of such an agreement after so many years when suit has been filed by the respondent plaintiff after the sale deed has been executed in favour of a different person i.e. the present appellant, it raises a serious doubt over the existence and validity of such an agreement.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012-Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 7/8 Why for all these years the plaintiff waited and did not claim any specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23/6/1998 is not explained by the plaintiff and submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent in this regard was only that time was not the essence in the agreement. This Court also had a look at this agreement during the course of arguments and prima facie it was found that agreement executed on a non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- on 23/6/1998 bearing thumb impression of Smt. Saro Devi has been notarized after about 13 days on 6/7/1998. Thus, the date of execution of said agreement dated 23/6/1998 and notarization of the same on 6/7/1998 also casts a shadow of doubt on the said agreement. Long delay of 11 years in plaintiff approaching the court of law seeking specific performance after the registered sale deed was executed in favour of present appellant - Tiloka Ram is also required to be explained by the plaintiff respondent before the learned trial court. In these circumstances, granting a blanket status quo order may cause serious prejudice to the present appellant to enjoy his property and to raise construction thereon. The equities in the present case could be settled if the appellant defendant was restrained from further alienating the suit property and creating third party rights, even though such alienation, if any, would remain subject matter of lis pendens as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. For this restraint, learned counsel for the appellant defendant fairly agreed.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 368/2012-Tiloka Ram vs. Bhika Ram & Anr.
Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 8/8
8. There is no dispute about proposition of law laid down in the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff, however, the aforesaid restraint order against alienation meets the ends of justice and is found to be in accord with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Narendra Kante vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. (supra).
9. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned order dated 16/2/2012 of the learned trial court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra is modified and temporary injunction application of the plaintiff respondent shall stand disposed of and during the pendency of the suit, the appellant defendant - Tiloka Ram shall not alienate the suit property and shall not create third party rights over the suit property. In the circumstances of the case, the learned trial court is also requested to expedite the trial of the suit.
10. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
item no. 16 baweja/-