High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Dass v. Jagat Singh - SECOND APPEAL No. 1665 of 1983  RD-AH 17095 (3 October 2006)
Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.
Civil Misc. Stay Application No.73259 of 1999
List has been revised. Shri Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is present. However, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent are not present.
The aforementioned Application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, interalia, praying that the defendant-respondent (Jagat Singh) be restrained from transferring or alienating the land in question to any person, including Indra Pal son of Nawab, and further for maintaining status-quo during the pendency of the Second Appeal before this Court.
The aforementioned Application is accompanied by an affidavit, sworn on 9.10.1999. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said affidavit, it is stated as follows:
"9. That the appellant has now come to know that the defendant-respondent Jagat Singh is intending to sell his 1/4 Share in the plot in dispute and for the said purpose is in the process of entering into an agreement with one Indra Pal son of Nawab resident of village Bisokat, Modi Nagar.
10. That in case the defendant-respondent Jagat Singh sells his share in the land in dispute to anyone including Nawab, the plaintiff-appellant shall suffer great and irreparable loss. It is stated that the appeal itself is of 1983 and in case any transfer is made, that would further create complication and would further cause delay in the disposal of the appeal."
In reply to the said affidavit, a counter affidavit, sworn on 3.12.1999, has been filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent. The averments made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid Stay Application have been replied to in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said counter affidavit.
The said paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit are reproduced below:
"10. That the contents of paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit are wholly false to the knowledge of the maker of the affidavit, the land in dispute is the sole source of livelihood of the deponent and his family and the deponent, when he was in dire need of money, had entered into an agreement for sale with the appellant but since thereafter the deponent never intended to sell his share in the land in dispute to anybody. The assertion in the paragraph under reply that the deponent is in the process of entering into an agreement with one Indra Pal son of Nawab, resident of Bisokhar is wholly false, the deponent and Sri Indrapal aforesaid are on inimical terms and criminal cases are going on between them.
11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 10 of the affidavit, it is submitted that since the deponent has no intention of selling his share in the land in dispute, there is no question of the applicant-appellant suffering any loss and in any case any sale of the land in dispute shall be hit by principle of lispendense."
In reply to the said counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, sworn on 16.9.2006, has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said counter affidavit have been replied to in paragraph 11 of the said rejoinder affidavit. The said paragraph 11 of the rejoinder affidavit is as under:
"11. That the contents of paras 10, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, at present, need no reply. It is however stated that instead of selling the land in dispute, the defendant-respondent has sold the earth of the land thereby making the land uncultivable and in case he is further not restrained from doing so, the plaintiff appellant shall suffer an irreparable loss and hardship. The prayer for directing the parties to maintain status quo still survives and it is in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the defendant respondent to maintain the status quo and not to dig earth of the land in dispute and remove the same from the land in dispute, during the pendency of the present appeal in this Hon'ble Court."
It is, thus, evident from the averments made in paragraph 11 of the said counter affidavit that the defendant-respondent has specifically stated that he has no intention to sell his share in the land in question. However, in paragraph 11 of the said rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that instead of selling the land in dispute, the defendant-respondent has sold the earth of the land thereby making the land uncultivable.
In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice that the parties be directed to maintain status-quo as of date in respect of the land in question during the pendency of the Second Appeal.
It is, accordingly, directed that the parties hereto will maintain status-quo as of date in regard to the land in question during the pendency of the Second Appeal.
The Second Appeal is now ready for hearing, and it will be listed for hearing in due course.
The records of the Courts below, if not already received, will be summoned forthwith.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.