Law: Civil Procedure Code (1908)

Section: 115

JUDGMENT

The dispute in this case relates to agricultural land measuring 162 acres situated in Deh Behram Bari, Taluka and District Sanghar. This land belongs to respondent No. 1 Mst. -Aqlan. The applicants claim that the aforesaid land was leased out to them by respondent No. 1 by an agreement in writing dated 5-6-1976 for a period of five years commencing from 1979 at the rate of Rs. 16,200 per year. According to the allegation of the applicants respondent No. 1 received at the time of the agreement the lease money for the first two years. It is common ground that the land in dispute was on lease with one Niaz Ahmed Wasan upto Rabi 1978-79. Accordingly it was stipulated in the agreement between the parties that the possession of -the land will be handed over with effect from Kharif 1979-80. However, according to the allegation of the applicants, possession of the "vacant land" meaning thereby the land which was unoccupied by cultivation of the previous lessee, was handed over to the appellants in the last week of December 1978. In pursuance of the aforesaid the applicants advanced a total sum of Rs. 45,000 as tactical to the haris who started preparations for cultivation for the Kharif crop. But sometime thereafter respondent No. 2 came upon the land and declaring that he had taken the lease of the land from respondent No. I through a Registered Lease Deed, demanded the applicants to vacate the possession of the land. The applicants thereupon approached respondent No. I for registration of their Lease Deed but she refused to do so. They then learnt that on 2-1-1979 respondent No. 1 had executed and registered a Lease Deed in favour of respondent No. 2 through her attorney respondent No. 3 in respect of 117-12 acres out of the disputed land at the rate of Rs. 23,400 per year for five years. The applicants there upon filed Suit No. 27/1979 against the respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sanghar for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction. By way of interlocutory relief the applicants sought the relief of temporary injunction to restrain "the defendant No. 2 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land by himself or through his agents in any manner"