PHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the lower Appellate Court thereby it has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court refusing to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner in the suit preferred by him and respondents 4 and 5 alleging that they are in possession of the disputed land from the time of their ancestors and the land has been in their constant use. Mangoes and Babool trees standing on the land also belong to them. Since they are not educated, they did not know whether their names where recorded by the Patwari in the revenue papers or not. Non -petitioners 2 and 3 when tried to disturb their possession, they had to approach the Court for the declaration of their right and permanent injunction. An application was filed with the plaint for the grant of temporary injunction against the respondents 1, 2 and 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the documents and material available on record found that there was only one entry in the year 1993 which showed the plaintiffs' in possession on the disputed land. There have been no past records and the plaintiffs failed to show prima facie any right in the disputed land of their possession and the injunction prayed for was refused by the trial Court. On appeal, the First Appellate Court confirmed the findings arrived at by the Court below and therefore dismissed their appeal, hence this petition.

(2.) TWO Courts below have concurrently held that the land in dispute was of the use of the general public therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference. It is well settled that the finding of facts cannot be disturbed by this Court under the Revisional jurisdiction, unless those findings are perverse or those may result in the grave miscarriage of justice. Advancement of Justice is the prime object of all laws. The plaintiffs petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 have been found by the two Courts below not to have the prima facie case and have also been found not to be in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. This Court is bound by the findings of facts arrived at by the two Courts below. The petition has no substance and is, therefore, summarily dismissed.