P.S. YADAV Vs. RAMTELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission.

(2.) THE appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Khurai District Sagar in Civil Suit No. 100 -A/2012 whereby the application for injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. has been rejected.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that the court below has considered all the aforesaid averments of the appellant and has also taken into consideration the fact that the respondents have filed a sale deed in their favour executed in the year 1973 and have also filed the latest khasra entries of the year 2011 -12 wherein they have been shown in possession. The court below has also taken into consideration the fact that the appellant has not filed any documents or khasra entries indicating his possession since 1990. He has only filed khasra entries of the year 2001 -02 to 2006 -07 wherein he has been shown in possession. The court below has also taken into consideration the fact that while the appellant has filed the affidavits of the independent individuals to the effect that the appellant is in possession similar affidavits have also been filed by the respondents of the independent persons ascertaining their possession. The court below has also taken into consideration all the aforesaid aspects and has rejected the application for injunction by stating that there is a sale deed in favour of the respondents, and that the latest khasra entries of the year 2011 -12 show that they are in possession and therefore, in view of the fact that there are rival affidavits filed by both the parties to the effect that they are in possession, has refused to grant injunction in favour of the appellant by recording a finding to the effect that there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellant. The aforesaid finding is based on the proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on the record and nothing has been pointed out by the appellant to indicate any perversity or illegality in the aforesaid finding.