JAGANNATH SINGH Vs. NABBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE finding on the question of possession recorded by the Courts below is not very specific. However, a combined reading of paras 5, 6 and para 1 (additional pleas) of the written statement does suggest that the plaintiff had entered into possession of the suit property prior to the institution of the suit. The defendants too have felt the necessity of filing a suit against the plaintiff for restoration of possession. The contents of notice dated 3.10.72 (Ex.P/3) served by the defendants on the plaintiff also go to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the property since before the date of the notice. Such possession he would be entitled to protect from any attempted interference so long as not dispossessed by due process of law. So is the view taken in Ram -kishan v. Ram -pal (1992 -1 MPWN 164). Both these decisions of this Court are based on several decisions of the Supreme Court referred to therein.

(2.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below in so far as they direct dismissal of relief of specific performance to the plaintiff are maintained and to the extent to which they deny relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff are set aside. It is directed that the defendant/respondents shall remain restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff so long as not dispossessed by due process of law. 1992 (I) MPJR SN 7 and 1992 (1) MPWN 164 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.