Himachal Pradesh High Court
Balbir Singh vs Hari Mohan And Others on 1 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
2025:HHC:20622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
.
Reserved on: 4.4.2025
Date of decision: 1.7.2025
1. FAO No. 104 of 2024
Balbir Singh ....Appellant.
Versus
Hari Mohan and others. ....Respondents.
2. FAO No. 155 of 2024
Liberating Minds Foundation. ....Appellant.
Versus
Balbir Singh & others. ....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant : Mr.Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Somesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr.P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate,
alongwith Mr.Rakesh Thakur, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Mr.Navneet Kumar Bhalla, Advocate, for
respondent No. 4.
Notices not issued to respondents No. 1,
5 and 6.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
2 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
For the appellant : Mr.Navneet Kumar Bhalla, Advocate.
.
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate,
with Mr.Somesh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr.Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for
respondents No. 5 and 6.
Respondent No. 4 ex parte vide order
dated 25.2.2025.
r to
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
These two appeals arising out of the one and the same
order passed by District Judge Solan (Trial Court), for involvement of
common question of facts and law, are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. Appeal No. 104 of 2024 has been preferred by plaintiff No. 1
Balbir Singh, whereas plaintiff No. 2 Amar Devi and plaintiff No. 3 Asha
Dei have been arrayed as proforma respondents in this appeal.
Defendants No. 1 to 4 Hari Mohan, Randeep Singh, Salochna and
Librating Minds Foundation are respondents No. 1 to 4 in this appeal.
3. FAO No. 155 of 2024 has been preferred by defendant No.
4 Liberating Minds Foundation, wherein plaintiffs Balbir Singh, Amar
Devi, Asha Devi are respondents No. 1 to 3, whereas defendants No. 1 to
3 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
3 namely Hari Mohan, Randeep and Salochna are respondents No. 4 to
6.
4. Parties to the lis, herein after, for convenience, shall be
.
referred as per their status in the Civil Suit.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
gone through the record.
6. Plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit for specific performance and
permanent prohibitory injunction and alternatively for recovery of
damages to the tune of ₹1,00,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per
annum against the defendants including defendant No. 4 Liberating
Minds Foundation with following prayer:-
"1. By passing a decree of declaration to the following effects:-
Declaring the Sale Deed No. 2264 dated 21-11-2017 registered with
Sub- Registrar Solan to be wrong, illegal, null and void and is not
binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs, so far as the
same pertains to the suit land.
2. A decree of specitic performance of the contract is to be
passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants directing
the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed with respect to Khasra
No. Khata/Khatauni No. 184/239, Khasra No. 1125/995/707/191,
measuring 01-01-00 Bighas, to the extent Of 17/21 share, which comes
to 0.17 Biswas in terms of Agreement dated 21-06-2016 by passing a
decree accordingly.
3. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is to be passe
favour of the plaintifs and against of the defendants, restraining the
defendants from raising any construction on the suit land, restraining
them from creating charge over the suit land, restraining them from
alienating the suit land and also from changing nature of the suit land in
4 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
any manner, whatsoever either by themselves or through heir agents,
assignees, servants etc. with respect to the suit land comprised in
khata/khatauni No. 143/205, khasra No. 699/160, 705/191,
995/707/191, kitas 3, Khata/Khatuni No 146/208, Khasra No.
.
688/160,699/160,707/191, 1120/190 and 1130/200 situated in mauza
Anji, Hadbast No. 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.
4. Decree of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be
passed against the defendant no. 2 and in favour of plaintiff no. 1.
Alternatively, decree of recovery of the damages is also to be passed
in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the tune of
Rs:1,00,00000/- as damages and thereby directing the defendants to
pay Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as damages alongwith interest @12% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit tillits recalization in case
defendants fail to honour the compromise deeds dated 1.06.2016, 21-
06-2016 and 28-06- 2016.
Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper, may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants, in the interest of justice."
7. Claim of plaintiffs is based upon compromise/agreements
dated 11.5.2016, 21.6.2016 and 28.6.2016.
8. From pleadings and prayer clause it transpires that there
are two sets of suit land. One set is stated to have been recorded in the
revenue record in the ownership and possession of defendant No. 1 Hari
Mohan, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 184/239, Khasra No.
1125/995/707/191, measuring 01-01-00 bighas, i.e. 21 biswas, situated in
Mauja Anji, Hadbast No. 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.; and second
set of suit land is comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 143/205, Khasra Nos.
699/160, 705/191, 995/707/191, Khata/Khatauni No. 146/208, Khasra No.
5 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
688/160, 699/160, 707/191, 1120/90 and 1130/200 situated in Mauja Anji,
Hadbast No. 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.
9. Record placed on record depicts that out of second set of
.
land some land stood sold either by Hari Mohan or by one Krishana Devi,
who was sister of Palak Ram and daughter of Chet Ram. Chet Ram was
grand-father of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, whereas Palak Ram was
their father. This set of land was sold by Hari Mohan and Krishana Devi
to defendant No. 3 and some other persons.
10. Jamabandis for the year 2010-11 of Khasra No. 699/160,
705/191, 1125/995/707/191, 688/160, 1130/200 and 1120/190 are
available in documents filed by plaintiffs.
11. Land comprised in Khasra No. 705/191, as per jamabandi,
belongs to Jog Raj Bhagat S/o Swaran Bhagat but Jog Raj Bhagat is not
party to the suit.
12. As per jamabandi Khasra No. 1125/995/707/191 is in the
name of defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.
13. Revenue record/jamabandi of Khasra No. 707/191 is not on
record.
14. As per jamabandi out of Khasra No. 688/160, some land
was purchased by defendant No. 3 Salochna from Kuldeep Singh, S/o
Kahan Singh vide sale deed dated 6.1.2012. Out of this Khasra number
6 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
co-owner Balbir and Gian had also sold land to one Preeti d/o Madan, but
she is not party to the suit.
15. Khasra No. 699/160 was purchased by defendant No. 3
.
Salochna from Bhupinder Singh, S/o Nathu Ram vide sale deed dated
6.1.2012 and from defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan vide sale deed dated
17.2.2012.
16. Khasra No. 1120/190 and 1130/200 were purchased by
defendant No. 3 Salochna from Sunil, S/o Sh. Sohan Dass, vide sale
deed dated 6.6.2012. r
17. According to copy of sale deed placed on record by
plaintiffs, land comprised in Khasra No. 699/160, measuring 2-18 bigha;
Khasra Nos. 1120/190 and 1130/200 measuring 4-15 bigha was
purchased by defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation from
defendant No. 3 Salochna vide sale deed No. 2264 of 2017, dated
21.11.2017 for sale consideration of ₹6,00,00,000/- alongwith ¾ share
measuring 1-10 bigha in Khasra No. 688/160 and 35/41 shares
measuring 1-15 bigha in Khasra number 982/159. Khasra No. 982/159 is
not subject matter of present suit.
18. Claim of the plaintiffs is that Chet Ram (grandfather of
plaintiffs and defendant No. 1) was owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs and
defendant No. 1 are children of one Palak Ram, who had expired prior to
death of his father Chet Ram. Krishna Devi D/o Chet Ram was sister of
7 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
Palak Ram. According to plaintiffs Chet Ram had not executed any Will in
favour of any body including defendant No. 1 Balbir. Devku Devi was
wife of Chet Ram, who expired in the year 1998.
.
19. According to plaintiffs, suit land was to be inherited by
Class-1 legal heirs of Chet Ram in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd each by Devku
Devi wife of Chet Ram, Krishna Devi daughter of Chet Ram, and Palak
Ram son of Chet Ram. Because Palak Ram had predeceased Chet
Ram, therefore, his 1/3rd was to be devolved upon his children i.e.
plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 1 in equal shares, i.e. 1/12 share
each. But Hari Mohan and Krishna Devi procured false and fictitious Will
alleged to be executed by Chet Ram on 30.3.1993, registered in the
Office of Sub Registrar Solan, vide document No. 36, dated 31.3.1993 in
their favour, depriving other legal heirs from the property in reference.
Further that Hari Mohan also procured false and fictitious Will of Devku,
and he succeeded in sanctioning mutation in his favour on the basis of
alleged false and frivolous Will. It is further case of the plaintiffs that
defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan sold some property to other persons
including defendant No. 3 Salochna.
20. According to plaintiffs, the Will alleged to be executed by
Chet Ram was challenged by filing Civil Suit No. 84-1 of 2014, titled
Balbir Singh Vs. Hari Mohan and others, but in view of compromise
8 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
arrived at between the parties on 11.6.2016 and 21.6.2016, the said suit
was disposed of being not pressed.
21. It is further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 3
.
Salochna had entered into an agreement on 28.6.2016 with plaintiff No. 1
Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan wherein plaintiff No. 1 and
defendant No. 1 had agreed to provide and had given possession of
some portion of land to defendant No. 3 Salochna to facilitate her
construction work and in turn defendant No. 3 Salochna had agreed to
provide flats to plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 in the building to be
constructed by her.
22. According to plaintiffs to deprive plaintiffs from their legal
right to have share in the property, defendant No. 1 had transferred the
land to defendant No. 3 and defendants No. 2 and 3, despite entering into
compromise, have sold the property out of suit land to defendant No. 4
Liberating Minds Foundation vide sale deed dated 2264 of 2017, dated
21.11.2017.
23. In aforesaid facts, suit was filed alongwith application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure bearing CMA
No.216 of 2023, wherein Trial Court (District Judge), though has
observed that defendant No.4 cannot be deprived from use of the suit
land despite having purchased it for sale consideration of ₹6,00,00,000/-
and spent ₹11,00,00,000/- in its construction and has permitted
9 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
defendant No. 4 to develop/raise constriction on the part of suit land,
however has also ordered that in case plaintiffs succeeded in suit, then
defendant No. 4 shall not claim any equity on account of development or
.
construction raised by it and if suit is finally decreed in favour of plaintiffs,
defendant No. 4 shall handover the suit land without any objection that it
had raised construction on the suit land or developed the same.
24. Plaintiffs have preferred FAO No. 104 of 2024 against
aforesaid order dated 20.11.2023 to the extent it permits defendant No. 4
Liberating Minds Foundation to develop or raise construction on the part
of suit land.
25. Defendant No. 4 has filed FAO No. 155 of 2024 assailing
the aforesaid order dated 20.1.2023 against the condition whereby in
case of decree of suit in favour of plaintiffs, defendant No. 4 has been
directed to handover the land to plaintiffs without any objection on the
basis of development and construction raised on the suit land.
26. Plaintiffs' case is based on agreements/compromises dated
11.6.2016, 21.6.2016 and 28.6.2016.
27. First Compromise dated 11.6.2016.
(A) This compromise is between plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh
and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, wherein some terms have
been referred stated to have been agreed to be performed
10 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
by defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh, who is husband of
defendant No. 3 Salochna.
(B) In this compromise, it has been stated that at that time
.
i.e. on 11.6.2016 only 21 biswas of land was left in the
name of defendant No.1 Hari Mohan in the revenue record
and out of that defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan had agreed that
he shall transfer 17 biswas of land in favour of plaintiff No. 1
Balbir Singh and rest shall be kept by him in his own and his
sons' name.
(C) As per this compromise, defendant No. 2 Randeep
Singh had agreed to give one set each consisting of two
rooms set each to plaintiff Balbir in first floor and to
defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan in ground floor with rider that
plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan
shall have no right, title or interest in the rights of defendant
No. 2 Randeep Singh above these two rooms sets and land
will also remain in the name of Randeep Singh.
(D) As per this compromise defendant No. 2 Randeep
Singh had agreed to pay ₹1,00,000/- to plaintiff No. 1 Balbir
Singh.
(E) This compromise dated 11.6.2016 indicates that plaintiff
No. 1 Balbir Singh had accepted selling of land other than
11 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
the land referred in this compromise, by defendant No. 1
Hari Mohan and others, because no question on the sale
deeds of remaining land was raised in this compromise.
.
28. Second Compromise dated 21.6.2016.
(A) This compromise was arrived at between plaintiffs
Balbir Singh, Amar Dei and Asha Devi on one part and
defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan on the other part. In this
compromise, as per recital thereof, parties had accepted
that Chet Ram was original owner of the suit property with
further statement that after death of Chet Ram, first party
and second party i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were
entitled to inherit the property in equal shares as legal heirs
of Chet Ram because Chet Ram had not executed any Will
in favour of any person.
(B) The attestation and sanctioning of mutation of the
property of Chet Ram in favour of defendant No. 1 Hari
Mohan was also admitted with further statement that
plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent
prohibitory injunction, against defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan
and Krishna Devi, challenging the Will alleged to have been
executed by one Devku, before the Civil Judge (Junior
12 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
Divison) Solan, which was pending adjudication for
28.6.2016.
(C). In this agreement compromise was entered between
.
plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 with respect to land
measuring 21 biswas, stating that defendant No. 1 Hari
Mohan was owner in possession of land comprised in
Khata/Khatauni No. 184/239, Khasra Nos.
1125/995/707/191 measuring 01-01-00 bighas, i.e. 21
biswas in Mauja Anji, Hadbast No. 645, Tehsil and District
Solan, H.P. and the remaining land was admitted to have
been sold by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan which was to be
inherited by the sons and daughters of Palak Ram in equal
shares.
(D) As per this compromise defendant No. 1 Hari
Mohan had agreed to transfer 17 biswas of land in favour of
plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh within a period of two months
from the date of compromise decree and remaining 4
biswas of land was to be kept in ownership and possession
of defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.
(E) In this compromise property dispute involved in
Civil Suit No. 84/1 of 2014, titled as Balbir Singh Vs. Hari
Mohan, pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court
13 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
No.1, Solan was stated to be settled and compromised with
undertaking of the plaintiffs to withdraw the said suit on
28.6.2016. Defendant No. 2 Randeep has been cited as a
.
witness to this compromise.
29. Third agreement is dated 28.6.2016
(A) This agreement/compromise was entered into between
defendant No. 4 Salochna wife of Randeep Singh
(defendant No. 3) on one part and plaintiff No. 1 Balbir
Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan on second part. As
per this agreement defendant No. 3 Salochna was
accepted to be owner in possession of landed property
measuring 11-10 bighas situated at Mauja Anji, Haqdbast
Number 645, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. with statement
that she had purchased the same from defendant No. 1
Hari Mohan and some other persons of the area.
(B) As per this compromise defendant No. 3 Salochna
was intending to construct multi storeyed building over the
land owned by her in the shape of flats, however, the land
sold by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan to her was in the
middle of plot and, therefore, she was facing some difficulty
and inconvenience to construct building over the land
purchased by her and, therefore, she had requested
14 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No.1 Hari Mohan
to provide and give possession of such portion of land
whereupon old ancestral house of second party was
.
existing on the spot, whereupon, plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh
and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan had agreed to provide and
give possession of land demanded by defendant No.3
Salochna with condition that defendant No.3 Salochna shall
provide and sell two separate accommodation having two
room set each, consisting of four rooms, having size of 10 x
10 feet each, two kitchens, having size of 10 x7 feet each
and two bathrooms-cum-toilets, having size of 8 x 5 feet
each in the building being constructed by her to the second
party, i.e. one for plaintiff Balbir Singh and one for
defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, Rohit and Vikas (both sons of
Hari Mohan).
(C) Aforesaid flats were to be transferred by way of
sale or gift by defendant No. 3 Salochna and expenses for
execution and registration of sale deed/gift deed were to
be born and paid by defendant No. 3 Salochna only.
30. Now plaintiffs' case is that to deprive them from their legal
rights and entitlement in terms of aforesaid compromises/agreements,
defendant No. 3 Salochna has sold her entire land to defendant No. 4.
15 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
Therefore, claim of plaintiffs is that all defendants including defendant No.
4 are required to be restrained during pendency of the suit/alternatively to
maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land, so as to
.
preserve the suit land to avoid any irreparable loss to the plaintiffs.
31. It is apt to record that in compromise/agreements dated
11.6.2016, 21.6.2016 and 28.6.2016, plaintiffs have not disputed or
questioned the sale of land by Hari Mohan and others to defendant No. 2
Randeep Singh and/or defendant No. 3 Salochna, rather they had
accepted the sale deeds of some suit land executed by defendant No. 1
in favour of others including defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh and/or
defendant No. 3 Salochna and, claim, if any, in first two
agreements/compromises was against defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, that
too with respect to balance land of 21 biswas, which was in the name of
Hari Mohan in the revenue papers and out of that plaintiff No. 1 Balbir
Singh was satisfied alongwith other plaintiffs on transfer of 17 biswas of
land in favour of plaintiff Balbir Singh by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.
32. It is apt to record that defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh,
though, has been stated to have accepted the compromise dated
11.6.2016, but he has not been named as a party to the said
compromise. The said compromise was between plaintiff No. 1 Balbir
Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.
16 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
33. In any case even if defendant No. 2 Randeep Singh had
accepted the said compromise dated 11.6.2016, then also as per this
compromise he had to provide two sets of two rooms in his own land, one
.
to defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan in Ground Floor and second to plaintiff
No. 1 Balbir Singh in First Floor and he had also agreed to pay
₹1,00,000/- to plaintiff Balbir Singh.
34. This agreement dated 11.6.2016 nowhere creates any
restriction upon defendant No. 3 Salochna, to sell the property/suit land
purchased by her to defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation or
some one else. Though acceptance of this agreement by defendant No.
2 Randeep Singh is yet to be proved, however, even if taken as it is, then
also defendant No. 3 Salochna is not party to this compromise, who was
owner of the suit land in her individual capacity.
35. Compromise dated 21.6.2016 also indicates that plaintiffs
were not agitating against land sold by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan to
defendant No. 3 Salochna or to some one else, but they entered into
compromise with respect to left out 21 biswas of land which was in the
name of defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan, and compromise was entered to
transfer 17 biswas out of the said left out land in favour of plaintiff Balbir
Singh by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan and for such transfer, Civil Suit No.
84-1 of 2014 was agreed to be dismissed being not pressed in terms of
compromise.
17 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
36. In agreement dated 21.6.2016 also there is no dispute
about the sale of suit land by defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan to defendant
No. 3 Salochna or to some one else. It does not create any restriction to
.
defendant No. 3 Salochna to sell suit land to defendant No. 4 Liberating
Minds Foundation.
37. In agreement dated 28.6.2016 also selling of suit land by
defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan to defendant No. 3 Salochna or purchase of
suit land by defendant No. 3 Salochna and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan
from some other persons, is not disputed.
38. The subject matter of agreement dated 28.6.2016 is that
defendant No. 3 Salochna was finding it difficult to raise construction
unless plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 would have agreed to provide
and give possession of portion of land whereupon their old ancestral
house was existing and in lieu thereof defendant No. 3 Salochna had
agreed to provide two separate accommodations having two rooms set,
one each to plaintiff No. 1 Balbir Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan.
39. There is nothing on record that defendant No. 4 Liberating
Minds Foundation was and is in need of said portion of the suit land
which is subject matter of compromise/agreement dated 28.6.2016 and
whereupon old and ancestral house is located, for development of and
raising construction on the suit land purchased by it.
18 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
40. In case defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is
using such land in furtherance to agreement dated 28.6.2016, then
definitely defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is bound and
.
liable to comply with all terms and conditions of such agreement which
include providing of two rooms sets one each to plaintiff No. 1 Balbir
Singh and defendant No. 1 Hari Mohan of the description prescribed in
the agreement referred supra. However, it is apt to record that there is no
such recital in the plaint.
41. In any case, this issue, if pleaded and disputed, shall be
decided by the Trial Court at appropriate stage on conclusion of Trial. As
no such issue has been raised, at this stage, agreement dated 28.6.2016
is also having no bearing on the sale deed executed by defendant No. 3
Salochna in favour of defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation.
42. It has also been observed by the District Judge/Trial Court
that plea of the plaintiffs that sale deed executed in favour of defendant
No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is illegal, fraudulent and void ab-initio,
is yet to be proved, and under Section 60(2) of the Registration Act, there
is presumption attached to the correctness of endorsement made on the
document by Registering Officer and such presumption can be rebutted
after leading evidence by the parties, and thus depriving defendant No. 4
Liberating Minds Foundation from using the suit land and by not allowing
to raise construction thereon, despite having purchased the same for sale
19 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
consideration of ₹6,00,00,000/- and incurring expenditure of
₹11,00,00,000/- for construction, certainly would be causing irreparable
harm and injury to defendant No. 4.
.
43. However, District Judge/Trial Court despite aforesaid
observations, has ordered that in case suit is decreed finally in favour of
plaintiffs, then defendant No. 4 shall handover the suit land without any
objection for raising construction on the suit land or development made
thereon, which, in given facts and circumstances, is unwarranted.
44. It is also apt to record that keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and visualising the fate of the suit, plaintiffs,
themselves, have made alternative prayer for damages from the
defendants amounting to ₹1,00,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per
annum thereon, in case defendants fail to honour the
compromises/agreements dated 11.6.2016, 21.6.2016 and 28.6.2016.
45. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to observe that
defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is not party to either of the
aforesaid compromises/agreements. Further sale deed by defendant No.
3 Salochna to defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds Foundation is not subject
to any of the compromises including agreement dated 28.6.2016.
46. In any case, damages claimed by plaintiffs on account of
act, conduct and deed of defendants have been quantified by plaintiffs to
the tune of ₹1,00,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% thereon. Therefore,
20 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
it cannot be said in sticto senso that loss and damage, if any proved to
have been caused to the plaintiffs, on action of defendants including
defendant No. 4 cannot be calculated in terms of money or compensation
.
and thus irreparable loss is going to be caused to the plaintiffs.
47. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that balance of convenience with respect to suit land purchased
by defendant No. 4 lies in favour of defendant No. 4 and it will be
defendant No.4, who will suffer irreparable loss on account of restraint
order prohibiting it from raising construction or developing the suit land
purchased by it. However, at the same time, to save the interest of all
parties, though imposition of condition of handing over possession of suit
land by defendant No. 4 to the plaintiffs may not be appropriate, however,
the said issue has to be kept open to be decided by the Trial Court at
appropriate stage after due appreciation of material on record in
accordance with law. In case of finding fault on the part of defendant No.
4, it shall be liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages, if any,
proved to have been caused on account of act and conduct of defendant
No. 4 related to purchasing of portion of the suit land and developing the
same. Accordingly defendant No. 4 shall be at liberty to maintain and
deal with the suit property purchased by it in any manner including raising
of construction and devolving the same, but such raising of construction
and development of the land shall not be a ground for exonerating
21 2025:HHC:20622
FAO Nos. 104 and 155 of 2024
defendant No. 4 from any liability if any fastened upon defendant No. 4
on conclusion of trial/legal proceedings in instant case.
48. However, defendant No. 4 shall not transfer, encumber or
.
alienate the suit property or create any third party right thereon in any
manner during pendency of the suit without leave of the Court.
49. Interim order passed by the Trial Court against the other
defendants No. 1 to 3 qua remaining suit land, which has not been sold
by Salochna and purchased by defendant No. 4 Liberating Minds
Foundation, shall continue as such and they shall maintain status quo
qua nature, possession and alienation of remaining suit land during
pendency of the suit.
50. It is made clear that any observations made supra are only
for disposal of present appeals, and shall have no bearing on the merits
of the main case and respective stands of parties in the main suit.
51. Impugned order dated 20.1.2024 is modified and appeals
are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
52. Record be sent back immediately. Parties are directed to
appeal before District Judge on 21.7.2005. No fresh notice shall be
issued to the parties for next date fixed for appearance of parties before
District Judge. Absence of either party shall invite adverse order.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
st
1 July, 2025 Judge.
(Keshav)
