MOHD.SHAMIM, J. - (1.)This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issue of an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servents and agen's from selling, transferring, allenating, encumbering or in any manner parting with possession of the super structure and the land adjoining thereto forming part of the property bearing No. 6. Sham Nath Marg, Alipur Road, Delhi, till the final disposal of the suit.
(2.)The case of the. petitioner as reflected through the pages of the plaint and the application under disposal is as under: 'hat the plaintiff herein is a tenant in respect of two separate portions i.e. quarter? Nos. 44 and 45 and a plot of land measuring 300 sq. yards with a tin shed in 'he property bearing No. 6, Sham Nath Marg, Alipur Road, Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 w.e.f. April 1, 1973. Earlier thereto the rate of rent of the above tenanted accommodation was Rs. 12112 Annas per mensem. The plaintiff has been in occupation over the said property or the las? about 45 years. The tenanted portions which are in occupation of the plaintiff have been shown by red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. Besides the above portion, the plaintiff is also in occupation of various other portions of the said property whereof the plaintiff has become owner by adverse possession. The possession of the plaintiff over the said portion has been open, hostile and exclusive, without any interference and interruption or challenge from any quarter, whatsoever, including by the defendants who have been visiting the said premies from time to time. The said portions have been shown by blue colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The defendants have now been trying to sell, transfer, alienate and part with possession over the said property in favour of certain un-known persons in superssssion of the exclusive rights of the plaintiff over the said land. The plaintiff has been running a work-shop in the open area over the abovesaid plot of land which is being used for repair of the cars and for denting and painting. The defendants have now been trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the tenanted accommodation as well as from the areas which are otherwise in his occupation by adverse possession. In fact, Shri Ajay Gupta alongwith certain other persons tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the areas in his occupation. However, they could not succeed in their designs on October 18, 1991 and November 13, 1991. The plaintiff has expended a lot of money over the said portions, in his occupation, inasmuch as he got constructed a shed and installed machines. He also erected boundary walls over the areas shown by blue colour by putting poles and wire mesh during 1956-57. Shri Ajay Gupta, one of defendants, came to the disputed property alongwith five and six persons. They removed the wire fencing put up by the plaintiff and which has been there for the last about 40 years. The plaintiff was using the said place for storing materials, motor parts and chsassis of the new vehicles. The removal of the said fencing caused irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiff. Later on the matter was reported to the police and it was got amicably settled on the intervention of the police. Since the plaintiff has become owner by adverse possession of the portion shown by blue colour, nobody has got any right, tile or interest in the said portion of he land. Hence, they have go no right to transfer, sell and alienate the said portions. Thus arose the necessity for the institution of the present suit and for the presentation of the present application. The application is supported by an affidavit.
(3.)The defendant No. 1 opposes the above application, inter alia, on the following grounds : that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as it does not disclose a cause of action. The suit is undervalued and the court fee paid is insufficient. The plaintiff has raised pleas which are contradictory to or inconsistent with one another and are mutually destructive. The plaintiff has got no right to restrain the defendant from alienating, selling or parting with possession over the whole or any part of the property owned by the defendant The defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the entire property bearing No. 6, Sham Nath Marg, Alipur Road. Delhi, to one Shri Ajay Gllpia and 21 others for a consideration of Rs. 1,80,00,000 and received a sum of Rs. 75 lacs by a bank draft from the proposed purchasers. The application for grant of permission under Section 7(i) of the Income-tax Act is pending decision with the income-tax Department. The sale deed would be executed as soon as the permission is granted to do so. The present suit has been instituted with a view to harassing the defendant and to forestall the execution of the sale deed in favour of Shri Ajay Gupta and to compell the defendant No. 1 to sell the property to the plaintiff. The second object of the plaintiff by the institution of the present suit is to get a seal of the Court on his unauthorised actions and to convert his illegal user of the open area into legal one. The reply is supported by an affidavit.