SAMARENDRA BANGAL AND ORS. Vs. PRAFULLA BANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seminal issue that spiraled in the course of hearing of this application is: - If there is conflicting claim of ownership and possession in respect of a particular property, what should be the guiding factor for getting an order of temporary injunction? In the instant case, admittedly the suit property was transferred on many occasions by virtue of registered sale deeds between the predecessors of both parties. In the learned Trial Court as well as before the learned First Appellate Court those deeds were produced in support of their conflicting claims. It is pertinent to mention that which deeds are genuine or not that can be ascertained only after a full -fledged trial. The trial Court as well as this revisional Court cannot hold a mini -trial to decide the title of the property and particularly when both parties have their registered deeds in support of their contention.

(2.) In this case the conflicting claim of possession is also there. Therefore, the onerous duty of the Court is to rely on the documents produced by the contesting parties as regards possession and also to ascertain which document shall prevail over the other.

(3.) Here the plaintiff/respondent produced L.R.R.O.R. in support of their possession, whereas defendant/appellant wanted to show that the L.R.R.O.R. is an erroneous one and for which B.L.R.O. had initiated a suo -motu proceedings for correction of the same if he gets approval from his next higher authority. Therefore, the defendant/appellant's claim is prospective as well as speculative. On the contrary, as on today, the L.R.R.O.R. stands in the name of the plaintiff/respondent. It is perhaps needless to say that the L.R.R.R.O. signifies the possession of the parties. Till the L.R.R.O.R. is rectified, it is presumed that the entries in the L.R.R.O.R. is correct and it should be held that the present possession lies in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.