Mohinder Singhg and Ors v. Nirmal Singh and Ors

IN T

Mohinder Singh Nirmal Singh an

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre Constitution of learned Civil Ju under Order 39 Brief Facts

2.

injunction, alleg by defendants N measuring 12 k situated in Villa mutation sanctio is pleaded that

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De

h and Others

VERSUS nd Others

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Akshay Jindal, Sr. Advocate w r. Tushar Kush, Advocate and r. Amyia Malhotra, Advocate for r. Ravinder Malik, Sr. Advocate w r. Garvit Mittal, Advocate and r. Ritender Rathee, for responden -.- ANNU J. esent revision petition has bee India for setting aside the ord udge, Junior Division Ambala dis Rule 1 and 2 CPC. e plaintiffs have filed the present ging that the sale deed bearing N No. 3 and 4 in favour of defendan kanals 19 marlas comprised in age Mateheri Sekhon, Tehsil an oned on its basis, is illegal, null, the entire land originally belo

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-8379-2025 (O&M) cided on :-03.12.2025

....Petitioners ....Respondents EEP PANNU with r the petitioners. with nt No.1/caveator.

en filed under Article 227 of der dated 19.05.2025, whereby smissed the application filed by t suit for declaration and perman o. 3448 dated 22.11.2023, execu nts No. 1 and 2 with respect to la n various Khewat/Khasra numb nd District Ambala, along with void and not binding upon them onged to earlier owners, who h

- nent uted bers m. It

carved out diffe the main Ambal carving out the parking of veh commercial cen plots/constructe approximately tw cost of the park reflects a 100-fo shops constructe

3.

It i been in peacef including the sh in the plan, and plaintiffs assert possession of th any sale deed i defendants No.3 ago for their ow belonging to the the site plans at that the defenda centre except fo rent plots for raising shops and d la–Hissar Road. The plots were o colony, land in front of the plo hicles of plot-holders as well a ntre. The plaintiffs aver that th d shops from earlier owners thro welve years ago, at which time t king area also. The site plan form foot-wide open parking area sho ed by the plaintiffs are shown by s further pleaded that ever since ful possession and enjoyment hops, plots, houses (where applic have been using the same witho that defendants No.3 and 4 ar he parking area, and therefore h in favour of defendants No. 1 a 3 and 4 had themselves purchase wn use, but the parking space ha e plot/shop owners, and had als ttached with the plaintiffs' own ants No.1 and 2 have no right, or whatever independent land the

developing a commercial site alo of different sizes, and at the time ots/shops was left undisputedly as the general public visiting hey had purchased their respect ough registered sale deeds execu the price paid by them included ming part of their sale deeds clea own by letters ABCD, whereas y letters CDEF. e their purchase, the plaintiffs h of the entire commercial cen cable), and the parking space sho out any hindrance from anyone. T re neither owners nor were ever had no right or authority to exec and 2. According to the plainti ed certain portions of the land lo ad always remained a common a so been reflected as vacant land n title documents. It is emphasi title or interest in the commerc ey may have purchased separately

- ong e of for tive uted arly ave ntre, own r in cute iffs, ong area d in ised cial

4.

defendants No.1 weapons and att the shops. Due respectable mem compelled to le dispossess them approached the 2 disclosed that impugned sale defendants No. competent to se invalid and void

5.

It i the layout of plo deeds, site plan plaintiffs. They Superintendent Naggal, as wel multiple sale d Jamabandis for other material to common parkin restrained, the e plaintiffs further aver that in 1 and 2, along with some compa tempted to forcibly take possess e to timely intervention of the mbers of the village, the defenda eave, though they openly threate m whenever they found an defendants through village elder they had purchased the land fro deed dated 22.11.2023. Th 3 and 4 were neither owners ll it, and that the sale deed in fav d ab initio. s pleaded that the development o ots and the demarcated parking ns, Aksh Shajra and other doc y have also filed copies of var of Police, Ambala and the Sta ll as copies of relevant receip deeds executed by previous o different years, Intkaal registe o show the nature of the comm ng area. According to the pla plaintiffs will suffer irreparabl

the last week of December 20 anions, came to the site armed w sion of the parking space in fron e plaintiffs, the police and so ants failed in their attempt and w ened the plaintiffs that they wo opportunity. The plaintiffs th rs, whereupon defendants No. 1 a om defendants No. 3 and 4 vide he plaintiffs informed them t of the disputed parking area vour of defendants No. 1 and 2 w of the commercial centre, includ area, is clearly reflected in the s cuments placed on record by rious complaints submitted to ation House Officer, Police Stat pts. The plaintiffs also rely up wners in their favour, copies ers, plotting plans of the area, a mercial site and the existence of aintiffs, if the defendants are le injury because the commerc

- 023, with t of ome were ould hen that nor was ding sale tion pon of not

value of their sh which was the e the defendants' therefore a decla

6.

under Order 39 to defendants N by them pursuan by defendants N further submit t No. 5332/1 date deed No.5100 d lawful owners o purchasing the p lawful owners w interference from

7.

parking area ex parking place sh deeds, and tha exclusively own plaintiffs have showing the di plaintiffs have a hops would be destroyed in the a essential feature of the planned c acts have cast a cloud over t aration from the Court is necessa e defendants, however, have con Rule 1 and 2 CPC by filing a de No. 1 and 2, the property in dispu nt to the registered sale deed No No. 3 and 4 for a valuable co that defendants No.3 had purcha ed 19.12.2013, and defendant N dated 16.12.2013, and thus defen of the land in question. Defend property from defendants No. 3 with the right to enjoy and use m any person. e defendants deny the claim xisting on the land purchased by hown in the plaintiffs' plan is no t the plaintiffs have no conce ned and possessed by defendant illegally tried to interfere with isputed land as parking. The already constructed their shops o

absence of a proper parking facil commercial centre. They assert t the plaintiffs' title and rights, a ary. ntested the suit and the applicat etailed written statement. Accord ute is validly owned and posses o. 3448 dated 22.11.2023 execu onsideration of ₹64,87,500/-. Th ased the land earlier vide sale d No.4 had purchased land vide s ndants No. 3 and 4 were themsel dants No. 1 and 2 state that a 3 and 4, they have become full a the land as they deem fit, with of the plaintiffs of any comm y them, asserting that the so-cal ot part of the plaintiffs' plots or s ern with the land which is n ts No.1 and 2. They allege that h their possession and are fals defendants also contend that n their respective plots and have

- lity, that tion ding ssed uted hey deed sale lves after hout mon lled sale now sely

right over any a their willingnes plaintiffs' shops filed a false and

8.

arguments of bo case for grant of challenge was to 3 and 4 were no same to defenda along with the e observed that d under valid reg plaintiffs. No m were divested o impugned deed Court therefore lacked authority defendants No.

9.

front of their sh of their plots. I parking do not absence of any r additional land or passage, altho ss to grant a passage of 20–25 s as a matter of convenience. Th d frivolous suit to harass them. e trial Court, after considerin oth sides, held that the plaintiff f temporary injunction. The Cou o the sale deed dated 22.11.2023 ot the owners of the suit land a ants No.1 and 2. However, on e earlier sale deeds of 2013 relied defendants No.3 and 4 had the gistered documents, which ha material was placed on record to of their rights at any point of tim was different from what they h found no prima facie basis to y, title or competence to exe 1 and 2. e Court also dealt with the plain hops was common land and that It held that the recitals in the s t create any legally enforceabl registered easement or documen

ough the defendants had expres feet for ingress and egress to hey maintain that the plaintiffs h ng the pleadings, documents a ffs failed to establish a prima fa urt noted that the plaintiffs' prim 3 on the ground that defendants N and had no authority to transfer examining the impugned sale d d upon by the defendants, the Co mselves acquired title to the la ad never been challenged by o show that defendants No.3 an me or that the land sold under had previously purchased. The t hold that defendants No. 3 an ecute the sale deed in favour ntiffs' plea that the parking area its value was included in the pr ale deeds regarding availability le right in rem, especially in nt establishing exclusive rights o

- ssed ave acie mary No. deed ourt nd 4 trial d 4 of a in rice y of

the said area. Th alleged parking claim appeared adjudicated only

10.

A plaintiffs' own c had, even after involving the sa neither been den reflected acquie inconsistent wit earlier civil pro plaintiffs thems (predecessor of already taken pl The Court foun that defendants N

11.

On failed to show direct interferen their grievances injunctive relief in favour of th he plaintiffs had not produced a space formed part of their pur d to rest only on assertions an y upon detailed evidence during significant consideration weig conduct. It noticed that several p the filing of the present suit, e ame property with defendants No nied nor challenged. The Court escence in the ownership of d th the plaintiffs' present stand. T oceedings for partition (Civil elves had not disputed the prop f defendants No. 1 & 2), and ha lace and all co-sharers were in po nd that this earlier stand ran con No. 3 and 4 had no share or auth n the question of irreparable loss that the sale deed or the impu nce with their enjoyment of the s were based more on future ap f. The Court also found that the he plaintiffs, especially when m

any title document showing that rchased land. Rather, the plainti nd apprehensions which could trial. ghed by the trial Court was plaintiffs and their family memb entered into registered transacti o. 1 and 2, and these sale deeds h held that such conduct prima fa defendants No. 1 and 2 and w The trial Court further took note Suit No. 681/2015) in which prietary rights of defendant Sud ad taken a stand that partition h ossession of their respective shar ntrary to the plaintiffs' current p hority in the suit property. s, the Court held that the plaint ugned transactions had caused ir existing plots or shops, and t pprehensions, which cannot jus balance of convenience did not multiple registered sale deeds h

- ffs' be bers ons had acie was e of desh had res. plea tiffs any that tify t lie

already been ex existence.

12.

Ov any of the three irreparable injur 1 and 2 CPC.

13.

application by o and in accordan although the pl defendants No. questioned the themselves acqu 3 and 4 sold a executing the i themselves own marlas and ther under the pretex

14.

in their sale dee third parties, es recognition of a had purchased l which clearly d xecuted and acted upon, and thir verall, the trial Court concluded essential requirements, prima fa ry, and accordingly dismissed th e First Appellate Court upheld observing that the trial court ha nce with settled legal principle laintiffs challenged the sale de 3 and 4 in favour of defenda earlier sale deeds through wh uired title. The Court found no m anything beyond their share or impugned sale deed. It was em ners of only 3 kanals 10 marlas o refore could not claim injunctiv xt of a "parking area". e appellate court also noted tha eds regarding parking could not c pecially in the absence of any s a reserved parking area. The co land from defendants No.1 and emonstrated acceptance of their

rd-party rights may have come i that the plaintiffs had not satisf acie case, balance of convenience he application under Order 39 R d the dismissal of the injunct ad exercised its discretion soun es. The appellate court noted t eed dated 22.11.2023 executed ants No.1 and 2, they had ne hich defendants No.3 and 4 h material to show that defendants N r that they had lost title prior mphasised that the plaintiffs w out of the total land of 37 kanals ve control over a much larger a t the plaintiffs' reliance on reci create any enforceable right agai sanctioned layout plan or statut ourt observed that several plaint 2 even after the filing of the s r title and undermined the plea t

- into fied e or Rule tion ndly that by ever had No. r to were s 14 area tals inst tory tiffs suit,

the defendants' could not be gra imposed unilate consent.

15.

in the earlier par not establish exc of sale deeds, no be transferred b that the challeng earlier stands. H founded upon c appellate court d Arguments of t

16.

Bef both courts belo possession of a transferred poss have been in co purchase of thei appended with t litigation was v and that the ea appreciated in p ownership was fraudulent or v anted against a co-sharer, nor co erally by one co-sharer upon an e appellate court also rejected th rtition suit (CS No. 681/2015), h clusive demarcation of shares an ot on any sanctioned partition. It y the plaintiffs' vendors than w ge raised by the present appellan Holding that the trial court's o correct application of law gov dismissed the appeal. the Petitioner Before This Cou fore this Court, learned counse ow failed to appreciate that de any identifiable portion of lan session to defendants No. 1 and ontinuous use of the parking area ir plots in 2011–2013, as reflecte the plaint. It is further urged that void and could not affect the ex arlier judgment dated 18.10.20 proper perspective by the courts b

void. It further held that injunct ould any easement or reservation nother without partition or mut he reliance placed on the judgm holding that the findings therein nd were based merely on the reci t concluded that no better title co hat they themselves possessed, a nts was inconsistent with their o order was reasoned, balanced a verning temporary injunctions, rt el for the petitioner contended t fendants No. 3 and 4 were not nd and therefore could not h d 2. It is argued that the plaint a and excess portion ever since ed in the site plans and photogra the sale during the pendency of xisting possession of the plainti 023 in the partition suit was below.

- tion n be tual ment did tals ould own that t in have tiffs aphs f the iffs,

17.

Lea defeated if the raising construc placed on the j argue that even prejudicial to th livelihood is lin injunction may l Arguments of t

18.

Con that the petition findings after e petitioners have constitutes a res bind third parti undisputed co-sh

19.

It i land from defen their ownership deed is void. Th common user c sanctioned par dispossession w their plots and s arned counsel submitted that the respondents were allowed to a ction on the area being used fo udgment in Mohan Lal v. Pre n a co-sharer in possession can he rights of other co-sharers. ked with the commercial viabili lead to multiplicity of proceedin the Respondents Before This C nversely, learned counsel appea n is devoid of merit as both cour exhaustive examination of fact e no title or documentary basis served parking area, and that mer ies or curtail the rights of def harers. is further submitted that severa ndants No.1 and 2 after filing o p and fatally weakening their pr he respondents also argued that n an be imposed unilaterally by o rtition or mutual agreement. was stated to be imaginary, as th hops.

e purpose of filing the suit would alter the nature of the property or common parking. Reliance w eet Kumar 2008(3) LandLR 41 be restrained if the intended ac It was argued that the plainti ity of their shops and that refusa gs. Court aring for the respondents submit rts below have returned concurr ts and law. It is argued that to assert that the disputed port re recitals in their sale deeds can fendants No. 3 and 4, who w al plaintiffs themselves purcha of the suit, thereby acknowledg resent plea that the impugned s no easement, reservation or righ one co-sharer on another withou The alleged apprehension e plaintiffs remain in possession

- d be by was 1 to ct is ffs' al of tted rent tion nnot were ased ging sale t of ut a of

20.

Lea jurisdiction is n impugned order which, accordin Findings of Thi

21.

Hav advanced, this interference in r the First Appell including the na deeds, and the petitioners is dir the sale deed da defendants No. the absence of a competence can

22.

substantiation. document has b common parkin sale deed recital the rights of no unpartitioned. T enforceable righ arned counsel also contended narrow and does not permit re-a rs suffer from jurisdictional err ng to them, is wholly absent in th is Court ving considered the material pla Court is of the view that no revisional jurisdiction. The conc late Court demonstrate applicati ature of the plaintiffs' claim, the conduct of the parties. The rected against the competence of ated 22.11.2023. However, the fo 3 and 4 derived their title rema any material to show divestment nnot be accepted even prima facie e petitioners' claim of a rese No approved layout plan, g been produced to demonstrate ng in a manner enforceable agai ls may regulate their inter se righ on-signatories, particularly whe The plaintiffs' reliance on long us ht in the absence of material indic

d that the scope of revisio appreciation of evidence unless ror, perversity or patent illegal he present case. aced on record and the submissi o ground is made out to warr current orders of the trial court a ion of mind to all relevant aspe e title flowing from the earlier s primary challenge raised by f defendants No. 3 and 4 to exec oundational sale deeds under wh ain unchallenged and unassailed t of their rights, the plea of lack e. erved parking area equally la overnment sanction, or statut that such land was earmarked inst third parties. The buyers' o hts, but they cannot operate to fe ere the property remains joint a sage is also insufficient to create cative of a settled legal entitleme

- onal lity, ons rant cts, sale cute hich . In k of acks tory d as own etter e an

23.

Thi obstruction of a The plaintiffs co and no material their rights war does not favour sharers from m concluded.

24.

In own view unles or perversity. Th a correct apprec of temporary in infirmity in the c

25.

Acc hereby dismisse

26.

Pen

December 03, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe is Court also finds that the access, as projected by the petit ontinue to remain in possession has been produced to show any rranting interlocutory protection r granting injunction, as doing managing their own property an revisional jurisdiction, this Cou ss the subordinate courts' decisi he orders under challenge reflec ciation of the factual matrix and njunction. On a holistic view o concurrent findings warranting i cordingly, the revision petition i ed. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

apprehension of dispossession tioners, is speculative at this sta of their respective plots and sho y immediate or irreversible threa n. The balance of convenience a g so would effectively restrain nd may upset transactions alre urt is not expected to substitute ions suffer from manifest illega ct neither. Rather, they demonstr d settled principles governing gr of the matter, this Court finds interference. s found to be devoid of merit an stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- or age. ops, at to also co-ady e its ality rate rant