LAWS(P&H)-1991-9-173

DARBARA SINGH Vs. IQBAL KAUR

Decided On September 03, 1991
DARBARA SINGH Appellant
V/S
IQBAL KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Iqbal Kaur, plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration that she was the joint owner of the land measuring 49 Kanals 6 Marlas with defendant Nos. 3 to 5 to the extent of 2/3 share with a further allegation that she was in possession of the entire land as per the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84. An application under Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 filed restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession. The trial Judge found that the plaintiff had a prima facie case in her favour and restrained the defendants from interfering in her possession except in due course of law. On appeal the learned District Judge agreed with the findings as recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Few facts giving rise to this revision petition may be stated, thus -

(2.) Gokal was the original owner of the land measuring 49 Kanals 6 Marlas. It devolved upon Purshottam Ram, Sohan Lal and Des Raj, his grand-sons in equal shares. Purshottam Ram and Sohan Lal sold their 3/3 share to Iqbal Kaur, plaintiff, through a registered sale-deed dated 2.9.1970. In the subsequent revenue record the Vendee was shown as owner in possession of 2/3 share, Somehow, the balance 1/3 share continued to be shown in the name of three brothers though in fact it belonged to Des Raj only. Des Raj sold his 1/3 share to Darbara Singh and another, present petitioners, through a sale-deed dated 13-2-1989. This sale-deed was got executed from all the three brothers as their names had continued to be shown as owners in the revenue record. This sale-deed in favour of Darbara Singh and another shows that the possession was delivered to them. It is an admitted case of the parties that the partition had not taken place. It is against the order of the Courts below granting temporary injunction, the present revision petition has been filed by Darbara Singh and another.

(3.) The revision petition was admitted and status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained. The order of status quo dated 9.11.1990 continues to be operative till today.