Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tavinder Kaur Gujaral vs Ramdas Sharma on 28 May, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
FA No. 1719 of 2022
(TAVINDER KAUR GUJARAL Vs RAMDAS SHARMA AND OTHERS)
Dated : 28-05-2024
Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate and Shri Siddharth Gulatee- Advocate for
the appellant.
Shri R.K. Sanghi - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Gaurav Pathak - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Shri Mohd. Sajid Khan - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
Heard on IA No. 13965/2022 an application for under Order 41 Rule 5
read with Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is order of status quo
in relation to alienation of disputed property. After relying upon judgment of
Apex Court in Imambi Vs. Azeeza Bee in Civil No. 5565/1999 decided on
27.01.1999, it is urged that appellant was already tenant in the suit premises
but after Ex. P/1's sale deed, his status is that of co-owner. Therefore, he
cannot be evicted from suit premises. It is also urged that Second Appeal No.
1233/23 pertains to eviction matter which has been filed by landlord against
present appellant in the capacity of tenant. In above Second appeal, issue of
title was not required to be examined. Therefore, order passed by this court in
second Appeal No. 1233/2023 would not affect the out come of this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to para 32 of cross-
examination of plaintiff witness Ramdas, submits that findings recorded by the
court below, that suit property is joint property are erroneous. It is also urged
that defendant No.1 Shyam Das has handed over possession to appellant on
the basis of sale deed (Ex. P/1). Appellant is in possession of suit property on
the strength of impugned judgment/decree, respondents are trying to interfere
with the possession of appellant.Therefore, parties be directed to maintain
status quo in all respect. They may also alienate suit property.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in second appeal No.
1233/2023, order of eviction has been passed with the consent of present
appellant. It is also urged that in above second appeal, appellant argued the
appeal at length and thereafter this court returned its findings in para 6, only
thereafter appellant prayed for withdrawal of second appeal with the
submission that he may be granted one year time to vacate the suit premises. In
view of above undertaking, second appeal was disposed off with direction
contained in para 8. Therefore, no status quo can be granted in favour of
appellant. Hence, appellant's application be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
6. Perusal of para 30 of the impugned judgment reveals that learned trial court
has passed following decree in favour of plaintiff and against
appellant/defendant No.1 which reads as under:-
"30- mijksDrkuqlkj oknh dk okn vkaf'kd :i ls izekf.kr ikrs gq, oknh ds i{k esa
,oa izfroknh dz01 ds fo:) fuEukuqlkj vkKfIr iznku dh tkrh gS fd%&
1- oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) ;g ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd
oknxzLr lEifRr e-ua- 1] 1@1] 1@,] 1@ch] 1@ch@1 ftldk losZ uacj
143@312 fLFkr fdaXl os dsaV tcyiqj ftldh prqjlhek mRrj esa fdaXl os jksM]
nf{k.k esa edku] iwo Z esa 'kkldh; Mªsust if'pe esa fjDr Hkwfe ¼iSlst½ gksdj mldk
dqy {ks=Qy 2475-5 oxZQqV gS] oknh ,oa izfroknh dz- 1 o 2 ds la;qDr LoRo ,oa
vkf/kiR; dh gSA
2- oknxzLr laifRr ds fdlh fof'k"V Hkkx ls oknh dks izfroknh dz- 3 Lo;a ;k
vius izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls voS/k :i ls csn[ky ugha djsaA
3- oknh ds LoRo ds eqdkcys izfroknh dz- 1 }kjk izfroknh dz- 3 ds i{k esa
fu"ikfnr fodz; i= fnukad 24-03-2005 izHkko'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA
4- izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, mHk; i{k viuk viuk okn O;; Lo;a
ogu djsaxsA vf/koDrk 'kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij ;k lwph vuqlkj tks Hkh de gks ns;
gksxkA mijksDrkuqlkj vkKkfIr rS;kj dh tk;SA"
7. Perusal of final order passed in Second Appeal No. 1233/23 (Smt.
Tavindar Kaur Gujral Vs. Ramdas Sharma and others) reveals that above
second appeal was filed by the present appellant against plaintiff No.1 of
present case Ramdas Sharma and other person. As per above second appeal,
trial Court and First Appellate Court passed decree in favour of plaintiff No.1
Ramdas under Section 12(1)(a) and (c) of MP Accommodation Control Act. In
para 6 of order passed in above appeal on 04.07.2023, Coordinate Bench of
this court held that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, in considered
opinion of this court, learned courts below have not committed any illegality in
decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) and (c) of
MP Accommodation Control Act. In para 7 of above order, it is mentioned
that at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the
second appeal with the submission that he may be granted one year time to
vacate the suit premises. Thereafter, in para 8 of above order, it is mentioned
that in view of prayer made on behalf of the appellant for granting time to vacate
the tenanted premises one year time was granted to appellant to vacate the
tenanted premises.
8. Thus, from undertaking given by the present appellant in above second
appeal, it is apparent that appellant has undertaken before Coordinate Bench of
this court to vacate the tenanted premises within one year from 04.07.2023.
9. Perusal of para 2 of above second appeal reveals that in above case also,
present appellant has taken defence that on 24.03.2005 appellant had purchased
tenanted/suit premises from Shyamdas brother of plaintiff/Ramdas. In the
instant case also, appellant's case primarily rest on above sale deed. In the
instant case, sale deed has not been registered till today. There is no agreement
to sale in favour of the appellant. Therefore, prima facie, it can not be said that
status of present appellant has changed. Therefore, principle laid down in
Imambi (supra) does not help the appellant in any way.
10. In view of fact mentioned in the preceding para, it is evident that if any
temporary injunction is granted in favour of appellant in relation to possession,
then, it would negate the undertaking given by the appellant before coordinate
bench of this court on 04.07.2023, whereby he has given undertaking to vacate
the tenanted premises within one year from 04.07.2023. Hence, in considered
opinion of the court, in view of undertaking given by the appellant in above
second appeal, it would not be just and proper to issue any temporary
injunction in relation to possession in favour of the appellant.
11. Hence, no case is made out for grant of temporary injunction in favour of
appellant in relation to possession of suit property but so far as alienation of
suit property in concerned, parties are directed not to alienate suit property in
any manner whatsoever till disposal of present appeal.
12. Accordingly, IA No. 13965/2022 filed by the appellant is partly allowed to
the extent as indicated above and disposed off .
13. List the case for final hearing in due course.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
L.R.
