DALIP SINGH Vs. HAZARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated September 18, 1978 was dismissed by Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur. The injunction prayed for by him was declined. In appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and a decree for injunction, as prayed for by the plaintiff, was Passed. This appeal is preferred by the defendant-appellant.

(2.) The only contention of Mr. Majithia, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Appellate Court completely erred while deciding under issue No. 2 that the defendant-appellant was not owner of the land in dispute. Not only that there was note in jamabandi evidencing that the appellant was owner of the property, but the tenant had candidly admitted in his statement before the Court that he was cultivating the land under the defendants. He relies upon the following statement of the plaintiff :-

(3.) There seems to be force in the contention of Mr. Majithia. The learned Appellate Court clearly erred while holding that it was necessary for the appellant to prove, the way and manner, in which he came to own the land and unless the basis, on which the entries in Jamabandi came at to be recorded, he could not be held to be owner of the land in dispute. This litigation was between parties to the suit giving rise to the present appeal. The rights of the parties were to be decided as per case put up by them. The appellant was not required to prove his title against the whole world. Besides, there could not be better evidence than the admission of the respondent. The statement given by him and relevant part of which has been reproduced above, would leave no manner of doubt, that so far as he was concerned, he was cultivating the land in dispute under the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has not raised any meaningful argument to take a different view, but in fact, has mainly stressed that in so far the injunction is concerned, the plaintiff is entitled to the same as he is in possession and the said possession cannot be disturbed. There cannot be any exception to what Mr. Ahluwalia contends on the question of injunction.