Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application being No.16717/2012 in the present appeal alleging interalia that under the garb of the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the trial court, the respondent No.2 with the help of Police and other musclemen had forcefully entered into the suit house on 25.04.2012, by breaking open the lock of the main gate of the suit house. The appellants, therefore have prayed to pass the appropriate orders directing the respondent No.2 to vacate the suit house and further restraining him from entering into the suit house during the pendency of the suit. The said application has been resisted by the respondent No.2 by filing the reply denying the allegations made against him and further contending interalia that the suit property was purchased with the knowledge of the appellants and the respondent No.2 was in legal possession of the suit house by virtue of the sale deed dated 28.03.2012. It was also contended that the entries in both parts of the suit house were separate and that the application was filed with malafide intention to harass the respondent No.2.

8. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the respondent No.1 had only 1/6th undivided share in the suit house, alongwith the present appellants. In the sale deed executed by her in favour of the respondent No.2, she has categorically stated about her undivided 1/6th share in the suit property, which is a dwelling house. It is true that for the purpose of convenience, the house was divided into two parts, one part being in possession of the appellants and the other in possession of the respondent No.1. There was a partition wall in between in the common passage in the front part of the house, which appears to have been demolished because of the disputes between the parties. However, it is not disputed that there were certain common amenities like electric meters and common passage, being used by the appellants also. It is also not disputed that the sale deed was executed on 28.03.2012 by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2 and the suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs on 13.04.2012 i.e. within 15 days of the execution of the said sale deed. It also appears that the trial court having passed the impugned order on 23.04.2012, the appellants had immediately rushed to this Court by filing the present appeal on 24.04.2012. According to Mr. Maloo, 25.04.2012 & 26.04.2012 being Saturday and Sunday, the Court was closed and the matter was listed on 27.04.2012. On the said date, the Court, while issuing notice to the respondent No.2, had restrained the respondent No.2 from entering into the suit property and interfering in the peaceful living of the plaintiffs-appellants. Subsequently, the application under Section 151 of CPC was filed by the appellants alleging that the respondent No.2 taking undue advantage of the impugned order dated 23.04.2012, had entered into the suit premises illegally with the help of Police and musclemen and had broken open the lock of the main gate of the suit premises. It appears that the criminal complaints and the cross complaints have also been filed by the parties against each other in the Police Station.