ADARSH MURGAI Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts : Plaintiff sued Defts. for injunction alleging that she bought suit land from owner by a registered sale deed on 1.1.86 and land was mutated in her name on 22.6.87 and she was given possession which fact was confirmed by entries in Khatauni Paimaish and Khasra Girdawri and she was living in Punjab and then in England and returned in July, 1989 and found that ADM (Rev.) had ordered entry of name of Deft. no. 3 against the said judicial pronouncements, some of which have been noticed in the Karnataka authority and more recently by the Supreme Court in Krishna Ram Mahale v. Mrs. Shobha J.T. 1989 (3) SC 489.

(2.) The sum total appears to be that relief of injunction being a relief in equity, the court would not aid a person who himself is guilty of doing a wrongful act and has trespassed into suit property recently; or where the owner has acquiesced or been a party to his induction. The real owner is entitled to defend illegal occupation of his property and may throw out the trespasser during the "act and process" of trespassing. But where the possession of such a person has been peaceful, long, anterior an accomplished and he has been in settled possession of the property, with no right to remain in possession or has acquired ownership by adverse possession, he cannot be ousted or dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law.

(3.) As noticed earlier, in the present case, the plaintiff has been in occupation of the premises in question doing business there for long, may be since 1963 when he obtained licence from the authority concerned to do that business. The factum of anterior possession of the plaintiff is indicated in the defence in the W/S. It has found to be long one by the 1d. trial court. This "prolonged possession" is not disputed by the Id. Appellate Court as well Thus, the judgment of Karnataka High Court in K. V Narayan's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and the instant case is fully covered by the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Krishna Ram Mahale's case (supra). No fault can, therefore, be found with the trial court's direction to maintain status quo till the final decision of case by it. It finds support from Smt. Shakuntla v. Hira Nand Sharma, AIR 1986 Delhi 27: The Id. Appellate Court's refusal to confirm trial court's order, therefore, does call for interference u/S. 115 of the Code.