RAJ MANI SINGH Vs. RANGADEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, filed by the plaintiffs, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 7.4.1998, passed by Additional District Judge, Rewa, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7-A/96, arising out of the order dated 7.8.1996, passed by 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Rewa, in Civil Suit No. 56-A/95.

(2.) THE original plaintiff Raj Mani Singh filed Civil Suit No. 56-A/95, claiming that he was the recorded Bhumiswami of 11.49 acres of land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint situate at Village Belwa Paikan, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa. It was claimed by the plaintiff that as per settlement entry in the year 1923-24, Ramkrishna Singh, the father of the original plaintiff was jointly recorded alongwith Mangal Singh as Pattedar of the land. Thereafter, Mangal Singh left the Village Belwa Paikan in the year 1923-24 or thereabout and wrote a letter in the year 1929 to the effect that he claimed no share in the suit land. It was also alleged that Mangal Singh also stated that he already sold his share prior to the settlement and had left for Majhgawan. Consequently, the aforesaid lands belonged to Ramkrishna Singh. However, the name of Ramkrishna Singh and that of Mangal Singh continued to be jointly recorded in the revenue records. It continued to be so recorded even after the death of Ramkrishna Singh. Mangal Singh's name was recorded with Bhagwan Singh, the elder brother of the original plaintiff Raj Mani Singh. After the death of Bhagwan Singh, name of the original plaintiff was, recorded along with Mangal Singh. After the death of Mangal Singh, his sons Dulare and Rangadev Singh lived in the Village Majhgawan and they cultivated their own land. It was claimed in the plaint, that after the year 1923-24, the suit land was exclusively cultivated by Ramkrishna Singh and thereafter by his legal representatives. The fathers of the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were never in possession of the suit land. Only in the year 1993, the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that they are co-owners of the suit land and their name should be recorded in place of Mangal Singh. For this purpose, they obtained an order of mutation on 17.9.1993 for the entry of their names in Khasra along with the applicants. It was claimed that the order of Tahsildar, making mutation in favour of the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. was challenged earlier by them and the names of the applicants were recorded by order dated 5.6.1984. The applicants, therefore, claimed that the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are likely to interfere with the possession and, therefore, they filed suit for permanent injunction. On the basis of these allegations, an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed for grant of temporary injunction.

(3.) THE trial Court, by order dated 7.8.1995, found that the possession of the plaintiff was exclusive. However, in view of the fact that there were revenue entries in respect of the suit land showing that the applicants and the non-applicants were co-owners of the suit land, and especially when the yearly Khatauni of the year 1958-59 recorded jointly Ramkrishna Singh and Mangal Singh, it was held that no temporary injunction could be granted in favour of one co-owner against another. The order of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal. Against that order, a revision was filed which was registered as Civil Revision No. 1584 of 1995. It appears that the copy of yearly Khatauni of the year 1958-59. filed by the non-applicants in the trial Court (Annexure A-10 in Civil Revision No. 1584/95) was challenged by the applicants before the learned single Judge by producing another certified copy (marked as Annexure A-8 in Civil Revision No. 1584/95). The certified copy filed by the applicant showed that the certified copy filed by the non-applicants was not identical with that which was produced before the Court as Annexure A-8. The learned single Judge, comparing both the documents, found that only one Jamabandi could be correct and, there fore, remitted the case to the lower appellate Court with a direction that an enquiry be made regarding the correctness of the document and, thereafter, it was directed that the Court shall make a fresh adjudication.