AMIR SINGH Vs. RANJNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dtd. 19/11/2020 (Annexure P-l) passed by the lower appellate court, whereby order dtd. 3/7/2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by the trial court granting interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, has been set aside and the petitioner/plaintiff has been declined the interim order.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the trial court had rightly passed the order granting injunction in favour of the petitioner after perusing the documents on record and in view of the fact that the petitioner is shown in cultivating possession as tenant continuously for the past so many years. It is further submitted that the petitioner was very much in possession of the suit land on the date when he filed the suit. At that time the respondent-Ranjna was owner of the suit land. However, thereafter she transferred the land in favour of her son. But the possession of the petitioner was never disturbed. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the lower appellate court qua the aspect that the petitioner was not a lawful tenant, could not have been recorded by the lower appellate court. Such a finding can come only after leading of the evidence by the respective parties. It is further submitted that as per the last existing jamabandi, the petitioner was shown to be in cultivating possession on batai l/3rd. Hence, the findings recorded by the court below, qua the petitioner not being in possession of the suit property, is factually incorrect.

(3.) Notice of motion.