MOLU RAM Vs. BAJE SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On account of similarity of facts and identity of contentions raised, these five Civil Revision Nos. 2966, 3235, 3236, 3237 and 3238 of 1990, are being disposed of through the common order. As a matter of fact, this was the course adopted by the lower appellate court also.

(2.) The plaintiff -petitioner has consistently failed to procure an interim injunction in a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant -respondents to the effect that the latter should not interfere in his peaceful possession of the suit properties i.e. plots which are being used by the petitioner as open baras. The stand of the respondents, who claimed to be the allottees of those plots from the Gram Panchayat, who is stated to be the real owner of these properties, is that as a matter of fact the possession was delivered to them somewhere in June 1990, and since then they are in possession of the same. The trial court, in order to find out the factual position existing on the spot, had issued a Commission in favour of Shri R.S. Rawal, Advocate Panipat. He, after visiting the spot in the presence of the parties, reported that some Khors, Khunta and Gandasa (chaff cutter) and some cattle belonging to the plaintiff were tied there. However, this report of the local Commissioner was discarded by the trial court on the ground that he had exceeded his jurisdiction as he was not supposed to comment as to which of the party to the litigation was in possession of the said plots. Having considered this aspect of the matter, I find that this approach of the lower court as affirmed by the lower appellate court, is wholly frivolous. Neither the Commissioner could nor he has recorded any finding as to which of the party is in possession of the suit properties. All that the Commissioner has reported is that certain constructions such as Khors, Khuntas, Gandasas etc. stated to be belonging to the plaintiff were on the spot. Similarly, he found that the cattle which were tethered there belong to the plaintiff. Therefore, in a nutshell all that was reported by the Commissioner was about the factual existing position at the spot. Though there is some material on record that as per the revenue entries, Khasra No. 111 of which these plots form a part, is owned by the Gram Panchayat and was even in its possession as found to exist on the latest factual position as found to exist on the spot by the local Commissioner, this evidence cannot possibly have precedence over the same, at least prima facie. In the face of this, the balance of convenience is obviously on the side of the petitioner. Therefore, I find it difficult to sustain the impugned orders of the lower courts and set aside the same.

(3.) In order to be fair to Shri Harbhagwan Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents, it deserves to be noticed here that his contention to the effect that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as the property belongs to the Gram Panchayat, has no substance in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagu v/s. Ram Samp, 1985 PLJ 366. I, therefore, while setting aside the impugned orders, injunct the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioner -plaintiff over the suit properties, i.e. plots till the final disposal of the suits. There, is however, no order as to costs.