S K GARG Vs. DAYANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under section 115 of the CPC, the defendant no. 4, being aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.1994 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 43/92 by the learned First Addl. District Judge, Satna, granting injunction against the present applicant, has filed this revision petition.

(2.) THE facts in a nut shell: the plaintiffs Dayanand and Vayu Kumar, claiming to be the brothers of Lallaram, filed a civil suit before the trial Court inter alia pleading that the lands in dispute were belonging to the joint family and as the order was passed by the competent authority under Celling on Agricultural Holdings Act was illegal and as there was a partition of the property between the parties, the authority was not competent to declare the land in excess to ceiling limit, necessary declaration be granted in their favour. With the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 also filed, seeking a relief against the present applicant, Ram Vishwas and Fulla Kumhar that they be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the property. The suit and the application were contested by the present applicant inter alia pleading that after the property vested in the State Government, a part of the land was allotted in his favour on 17.3.1989 and since thereafter, he is in possession of the property forming part of survey no. 92/1 (kha) therefore, no injunction could be granted against him. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application but in appeal, injunction was granted against the defendant therefore, he has filed this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicants, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court, after appreciating the facts in their true prespective, has observed that the applicant is not in possession of the property and as the said finding is not perverse, the Court below was justified in granting the injunction. I have heard the parties at length.