UPKAR SINGH Vs. HARPARKASH KAUR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties before this Court are feuding progeny of late Jagjit Singh. The mother is on the side of daughters. Petitioner- plaintiff Upkar Singh had filed a suit for a permanent injunction, for the restraint of defendants-respondents from forcibly dispossessing him from the agricultural holding, detailed in the course of the pleadings at the trial. Alongwith the main suit, the plaintiff-petitioner also filed a plea under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. for the grant of interim relief to the above effect. The averment, made in the context, was that it is the petitioner-plaintiff who is in possession of that land following the death of his father, who was shown in possession of the land in the revenue record, and that defendants- respondents are residents of Jaipur since 1998 and they just could not have been in possession of that land. The further averment made by the petitioner-plaintiff was that the defendants-respondents have applied for correction of the girdwari entries in their favour; while the plaintiff-petitioner had himself filed proceedings before the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade for making khasragirdwari entries in his name. The mutation proceedings with regard to inheritance of Jagit Singh were reported to be pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate qua which a note was given in the Jamabandis.

(2.) The plea was resisted by defendants-respondents who claimed to be in cultivating possession of the land under challenge. They drew sustenance from a registered will dated 12.1 .1995 which was executed by Jagjit Singh in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. Qua the correction ordered by the revenue authorities in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner during the pendency of the suit, it was averred that the change was illegal and had already been challenged before the revenue authorities.

(3.) That the parties are engaged in a legal battle qua the correctness or otherwise of the revenue entries and the change made therein during the pendency of the trial before the Civil Court is apparent from the record. In the course of the presentation before this Court, it transpired that a Receiver had already been appointed by the competent authority in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and the Receiver had entered into possession of that land. This fact, by itself, divests the parties from entitlement to aver either of the two being in possession of the land in suit. The entering into possession of the land by the Receiver denudes both the parties from raising a claim of being in possession. In that view of things, any adjudication thereof at this moment would be an infructuous exercise.