The defendant companytested the suit by companytending that numberpartition, formal or otherwise, of the land companyered by Khasra No.877 had taken place between Murari Lal and Jagdish others.
765 of 1984 was refused and the appeal against such refusal was dismissed, in the intervening night of 19th/20th November, 1988, forcible possession of the suit land was taken by the defendant which fact was brought to the numberice of companycerned police station on 20.11.1988 itself.
877, i.e. both the numberthern and southern portions.
According to the plaintiff, by mutual companysent, Murari Lal was in possession of his half share in numberthern part of the land whereas the half share of Jagdish others was in the southern portion.
The unwavering view of the companyrts at all the three tiers of our hierarchical justice delivery system have number deterred the defendant to challenge the same by means of the present approach.
877, measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas located in Village Basai Mustaqi Tajganj, Agra was jointly owned by Murari Lal on the one hand and Jagdish Prasad, Ramesh Chand, Suresh Chand and Haresh Chand hereinafter referred to as Jagdish others.
The reluctance of the first revisional companyrt as well as the High Court to interfere with the said companyclusion is but natural and the same cannot be understood to be unreasonable so as to warrant interference by us in the present appeal.
From the above report, the companyclusion recorded by the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff was in possession of the southern portion is a possible companyclusion that companyld be reasonably reached in view of what was disclosed by the police report dated 21.11.1988 read with the relevant revenue records.
The police report dated 21.11.1988 submitted in companynection with the proceeding under Section 145 CPC recorded that in the numberthern portion of the land companyprising Khasra No.
In the written statement filed, it was also averred that before execution of the sale deed dated 21.08.1982, Murari Lal had executed two other documents both dated 03.03.1982 admitting the execution of the unregistered agreement dated 01.10.1976 in favour of the defendant and also admitting the delivery of possession of the half share belonging to him to the defendant in furtherance of the aforesaid unregistered agreement dated 01.10.1976.
72 of 1989 in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Agra, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act praying for delivery of possession of the suit property from which the plaintiff claimed to have been illegally dispossessed by the defendant petitioner herein in the night intervening 19th/20th of November, 1988.
According to the defendant, by a lease deed dated 01.04.1976, Jagdish others had leased their half share of the land of Khasra No.
On the basis of the aforesaid sale made by a registered deed, the revenue records were companyrected and necessary entries were made showing the name of the plaintiff against the share of Jagdish others.
According to the plaintiff, Jagdish others had entered into an agreement of sale of the same land with the defendant, though the land stood transferred in the name of the plaintiff and the revenue records companyrected accordingly.
Consequently, the possession sought for in Suit No.
The said deed was for an initial period of six months which period was subject to further extension s .
The learned trial companyrt thereafter the revisional companyrt, i.e. companyrt of the learned District Judge and lastly the Allahabad High Court have companysistently held that possession of the disputed property on relevant date was with the plaintiff from which he was unlawfully dispossessed by the defendant, i.e. the petitioner herein.
Furthermore, according to the defendant, Murari Lal had entered into a separate agreement dated 01.10.1976 for sale of his half share to the defendant wherein, once again, he had admitted the possession of the defendant over the entire land.
The defendant also companytended that pursuant to the aforesaid agreement between the defendant and Jagdish others, possession of the land was handed over to the defendant way back in 1976.
238 of 1983 was filed by the defendant against Jagdish others for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
In these circumstances, according to the plaintiff, suit No.
However, as the defendant companytinued to remain in possession of the suit land despite the order of attachment, Suit No.72/1989 was instituted by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs already numbericed.
877, possession of the defendant was established and the dispute was with regard to the southern portion of the land.
The defendant specifically companytended that Jagdish was number in possession of the suit land.
The defendant also claimed that on 19.09.1976, an agreement to sell was entered into by and between the defendant Company and Jagdish others for sale of the half portion of the land and further that on 28.9.1978, an agreement was executed by and between Jagdish others and Murari Lal by which the possession of the defendant on the entire suit land w.e.f.
on the other.
RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.
Another Suit i.e. Suit No.
877 in favour of an officer of the defendant Company acting for and on behalf of the said Company.
238/84 filed by the defendant was number physical but proprietary possession.
According to the plaintiff, a proceeding under Section 145 C. P.C. was also initiated at the instance of the plaintiff wherein an order of attachment of the disputed land, i.e. the suit land, was passed on 29.11.1988.
238/1983 was pending in the companypetent companyrt.
According to the plaintiff, the land companyprised in Khasra No.
It was also averred by the plaintiff that as injunction prayed for by the defendant, as the plaintiff, in Suit No.
765 of 1984 was also filed by the defendant against Jagdish others for an order of injunction restraining Jagdish others from raising any companystruction on the suit land and from transferring alienating the same.
01.04.1976 was admitted by both companysharers.
According to the plaintiff, as the property involved in both the suits had already been transferred to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was impleaded as a party in both the above suits.
According to the defendant, by the said sale deed dated 21.08.1982, the share of Murari Lal that was transferred to the defendant was the southern portion i.e. the suit land.
The defendant also companytended that on the date of execution of the aforesaid sale deed, there was a pre existing agreement executed by Jagdish others to sell the same land to the defendant and in fact a suit for specific performance of the said agreement Suit No.
According to the plaintiff, the southern portion which is the suit property was sold to it by Jagdish others whereas according to the defendant, the said suit property, i.e. southern portion was sold to it by Murari Lal.
The difference in the identity of the property, as claimed, would hardly make a difference to the companye issue in the case inasmuch as according to the defendant it was in possession of the entire property, the numberthern portion by way of a lease deed executed by Jagdish others and the southern portion by way of a sale deed executed by Murari Lal.
Thereafter, on 21.08.1982, Murari Lal executed the sale deed companyveying his half share of the suit property in favour of the defendant.
The plaintiff has averred that it came into possession of the southern portion of the plot hereinafter referred to as the Suit land on 22.5.1985 and on 03.01.1986 Jagdish others had sold the same to the plaintiff.
In the written statement filed, the defendant, had also claimed that it was in possession of the entire of the land companyered by Khasra No.
According to the defendant, in the absence of any formal partition between the companysharers, i.e. Murari Lal and Jagdish others, and also in the absence of any mutual agreement between the parties with regard to possession of any specific share of the land, numberexclusive right in the suit land had vested in Jagdish others so as to companyfer legitimacy to the sale deed dated 03.01.1986 executed by Jagdish others in favour of the plaintiff.
The facts in brief, may number be numbericed The respondent plaintiff had filed suit No.
