Swaran Singh vs Naresh Kumar
2001 Latest Caselaw 1629 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Swaran Singh (hereinafter described as "the plaintiff") has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain the defendant, his employees, agents and representatives from dispossessing the plaintiff or interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the Farmhouse, known as Randhawa Farms, measuring 40/570 share, 100/570 share in the land 6 bighas 11 biswas, forming part of Khasra No. 259/2, situated in village Rangpuri, New Delhi and also in respect of 5 bighas of agricultural land, forming part of Khasra No. 259/2, 823/2, 1229, 1274 and 1278 purchased from Shri Neel Kamal, situated in Village Malikpur Kohi alias Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.

2. The facts alleged are that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land and the super-structure referred to above. The plaintiff is also the attorney of Om Prakash with respect to 5 bighas of land, which is forming part of premises referred to above. Since the time the plaintiff took over the possession of the land, major developments work for transferring the land into a farmhouse was done by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had employed a number of persons for maintenance and other development of the said plot. The defendant was stated to be attempting to dispossess the plaintiff of the property through illegal means and forcible take possession of the same. On 9.8.1998 when plaintiff was away from Delhi, two persons were sent by the defendant, who came to the farmhouse and ordered the employees working therein to vacate the land. The plaintiff lodged a report. Thereafter on 28.1.2001 when the plaintiff was out of Delhi, defendant with certain persons came and forcibly entered the farmhouse and threatened the security guard of the plaintiff. The security guard had informed the plaintiff, who in turn had informed the police. Asserting that the plaintiff is the owner in possession, the present suit with the above said relief, already mentioned, has been filed.

3. During the pendency of the suit, and application had been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I.A. No. 1948/2001), seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents or employees from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. In the reply filed, the defendant denies the assertions of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. Khasra No. 259/2 was stated to be joint and undivided holding belonging to the parties who are co-owners thereto. It is denied that it is the exclusive property of the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the same. In fact, the claim of the plaintiff was stated to be with respect to 5 bighas of agricultural land in Khasra No. 259/2, 823, 824, 1229, 1274 and 1278. Khasra No. 259/2 was alleged to be situated at a distance of at least 3 Kms. from the said place. So far as other khasra numbers except Khasra No. 259/2 are concerned, the defendant was stated to be not claiming any right, title or interest in the same. The plaintiff was stated to have concealed the true facts and so far as Khasra No. 823, 824, 1229, 1274 and 1278 are concerned, it was asserted that a declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued. The Acquisition Collector had made an award with respect to these khasra numbers and the same had been acquired by the government. Even these facts have been suppressed. It was denied that the plaintiff was running any farmhouse therein.

4. Even the defendant preferred an application under Section XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I.A. 7313/2001) asserting basically the same facts to restrain the plaintiff or his agents or attorneys from raising any construction or to make changes therein to affect the joint user of the premises. The said application even has been opposed.

5. By this common order, both the above said applications can conveniently be disposed together.

6. A local commissioner had been appointed by this Court and he submitted a report. In the report, he pointed that it seems to be a barren land with bushes grown therein. There is a temporary structure of bricks and asbestos room, which was a temporary structure. There are two mixture machines besides a buffalo and a falf. Certain ballis and shuttering material was there. Some bricks were lying. The parties had claimed the joint possession.

7. It is well known that there are certain maxims which lies on the basis of equity jurisprudence. They govern the court in granting and with-holding the relief of temporary injunctions. Important amongst them is fair and good conduct of the party. The maxim that one who comes into the equity must come with clean hands is also confined to the conduct of the party. A party, who seeks equity, must come stating correct facts. In case facts are suppressed in connection with the matters in litigation, the party indeed loose the right to seek the injunction.

8. In the present case, the plaintiff filed the application stating that he is the owner in possession of the land in question. The Jamabandi on record indicates that the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the said property. Not only that, the report of the local commissioner further demolishes the claim of the plaintiff. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff asserted that he had done major development work and has set up a farmhouse. The report of the local commissioner indicates that there is only a temporary structure in the said property, which could be done at any time and otherwise it was not developed land. It can not be termed that a farm house had been set up before institution of the suit. These facts clearly indicated that what was alleged in the plaint, is not established for the purposes of the present order.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the local commissioner has found temporary structure, buffalos and certain mixing machines there. Indeed, that is so but it neither establishes the setting up of a regular farmhouse nor it can be termed that plaintiff could be taken to be in exclusive possession of the property because the local commissioner has appended certain photographs of the land along with his report. It clearly indicates that by and large, it is a barren land and has not been developed. It has never been used for cultivation. Different types of bush trees can be seen. If some bricks have been placed therein and a small temporary hut, which is obviously kutcha in nature, has been set up, this will not prompt the court to conclude and hold that plaintiff has already developed a farmhouse therein and was in exclusive possession at that place. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff in this regard must fail.

10. Same is the fact that can be arrived at from the nature of the assertions that except for Khasra No. 259/2 the other khasra numbers regarding which injunction is claimed, has since been acquired and this fact even had been suppressed. In these circumstances, not only the plaintiff has no prim-facie case, but it is obvious that plaintiff had been suppressing material facts and as a result thereto, no ad interim injunction can be granted.

11. For these reasons, the application seeking restraint order against the defendant is dismissed. Parties, however, are directed to maintain status-quo with respect to the possession. The plaintiff is also restrained from setting up any structure in the suit premises or changing the nature of the premises during the pendency of the suit.

12. It is made clear that nothing said herein shall be taken as expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.

13. Both the applications stand disposed of.

Suit No. 402/2001

14. Documents, if any, should be filed within four weeks. List it for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar (O) on 7.3.2002.