The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Application filed by the Defendants seeking the rejection of a perpetual injunction suit filed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs, legal heirs of the original Plaintiff, sought to prevent the Defendants from disturbing their possession of agricultural lands in Village Yashwant Nagar, Taluka Vikramgad, District Palghar. The Defendants, legal heirs of the original Defendants, argued that the suit was not maintainable as the Plaintiffs lacked legal title to the lands, which were subject to an unfulfilled agreement for sale from 1992. The Court, however, upheld the Trial Court’s decision, recognizing the validity of the registered agreement for sale and the Plaintiffs’ possession of the suit lands, thereby allowing the injunction suit to proceed.

1. Background of the Case:

• Parties Involved:

  • Plaintiffs: Legal heirs of the original Plaintiff.
  • Defendants: Legal heirs of the original Defendants.

• Property in Dispute:
  Agricultural lands in Village Yashwant Nagar, Taluka Vikramgad, District Palghar.

• Legal Proceedings:

  • The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the Defendants to protect their possession of the disputed lands.
  • The Defendants filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing that the Plaintiffs had no legal title to the lands.

2. Defendants' Arguments:

• Agreement for Sale:
  The Defendants contended that the original Plaintiff had no legal right to the lands, as the agreement for sale dated 13.07.1992 was never fulfilled by executing a registered sale deed.

• Possession and Ownership:
  The Defendants argued that the suit lands were still in their possession and that the original Plaintiff never took steps to establish ownership through a registered sale deed.

• Legal Bar:
  The Defendants claimed that the suit for injunction was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the Plaintiffs should have filed for specific performance instead.

3. Plaintiffs' Arguments:

• Registered Agreement for Sale:
  The Plaintiffs pointed out that the agreement for sale was a registered document, and possession of the lands had been handed over to the original Plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement.

• Possession Rights:
  The Plaintiffs argued that the suit for injunction was maintainable based on their possession of the lands, even without a registered sale deed.

• Legal Actions Taken:
  The Plaintiffs highlighted that they had taken steps to mutate their names in the revenue records, which were resisted by the Defendants.

4. Court’s Observations and Decision:

• Validity of Agreement:
  The Court noted that the agreement for sale dated 13.07.1992 was registered and recognized the Plaintiffs’ possession of the suit lands.

• Rejection of Application:
  The Court upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of the Defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11(d), allowing the Plaintiffs to pursue their suit for injunction.

• Conclusion:
  The Civil Revision Application filed by the Defendants was dismissed, and the Plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with their suit to protect their possession of the disputed lands.