2021 (5) TMI 845 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Suit against the respondents for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant over the suit schedule property - HELD THAT - Since the appellant is seeking temporary injunction against the respondents contending that he is in possession of the suit schedule property, the burden is on the appellant to first establish that he continues to be in possession of the suit schedule property. Such possession in respect of agricultural land is normally reflected in the Village pahanies - Even according to the appellant, the column dealing with possession in Village pahani dt.25.06.2019 in respect of the subject property shows the names of the respondents and not the name of the appellant. The instant suit has been filed on 06.07.2020, long after the respondents obtained the interim injunction orders on 06.09.2019 in IA No.682 of 2019 in OS No. 108 of 2019 - On the pretext that there is no mention of delivery of possession in Ex.P1 Agreement of Sale, it is not open to the appellant to contend that he continued to be in possession particularly when such alleged possession is not supported by revenue records such as pahanies. The Court below did not commit any error in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellant - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order in I.A.No.142 of 2020 in O.S.No.20 of 2020 regarding perpetual injunction for interference with possession.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appellant's Case:
The appellant claimed ownership of agricultural land through an oral family partition, seeking perpetual injunction against interference with possession. Alleged breach of an Agreement of Sale by the respondents and disputed possession of the suit schedule property were key contentions. Appellant also mentioned advancing a hand loan to respondents and subsequent legal notices issued.

2. Respondents' Stand:
Respondents claimed possession under the Agreement of Sale, contending they had paid advance consideration and were in physical possession for development purposes. Disputed appellant's possession claims and highlighted mutation in revenue records showing their possession. Mentioned filing a suit for specific performance and obtaining injunction orders.

3. I.A.No.142 of 2020:
Appellant filed for temporary injunction against respondents, reiterating possession claims under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Respondents opposed the relief, emphasizing their possession and actions under the Agreement of Sale.

4. Order in I.A.No.142 of 2020:
The Court dismissed the application, considering possession crucial. Noted conflicting possession claims and reliance on revenue records showing respondents' possession. Mentioned the ongoing civil dispute and specific performance suit filed by respondents as relevant factors. Declined temporary injunction based on the lack of clear possession evidence favoring the appellant.

5. Appeal and Court's Consideration:
Appellant challenged the order, arguing errors in dismissing the application. Court analyzed possession evidence, emphasizing the significance of revenue records in determining possession of agricultural land. Rejected appellant's arguments against the validity of revenue authorities' orders and highlighted the pending revision remedy. Noted the prior specific performance suit and injunction orders obtained by respondents, indicating possession disputes.

6. Conclusion:
The Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the lack of clear possession evidence favoring the appellant. Rejected appellant's contentions regarding possession and Agreement of Sale terms. Declared the appeal dismissed with no costs, affirming the refusal to grant temporary injunction. Pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

This detailed analysis covers the legal judgment comprehensively, addressing the issues involved and the key arguments presented by both parties in the case.