RAMESH AND ORS. Vs. NATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant -petitioners invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) have challenged the order dated 20.4.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissing their appeal against the order dated 8.10.20.01. The Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Karnal vide his order dated 8.10.2001 has allowed the application of the plaintiff -respondent filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code granting ad interim injunction restraining the defendant -petitioners from dispossessing the plaintiff -respondent from the suit land during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) FOR the effective adjudication of the controversy raised in the present revision petition, it is necessary to notice the facts in brief. The plaintiff -respondent Nathi son of Tej Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant -petitioners with a prayer that the plaintiff -respondent is owner in possession of agricultural land fully described in the plaint alleging that he purchased the land from Darshan Lal and Jai Pal sons of Nano Devi and also Bimla, Parmeshwari daughters of Smt. Santo daughter of Sada Rant. It was further alleged that the land has also been purchased from Attar Singh son of Ratti Ram, Ishwar Devi daughter of Ratti Ram etc, etc, vide registered sale deed No. 8818/1 dated 15.3.2001. It was further claimed that the sale deed was executed by Raj Kumar son of Parmeshwari daughter of Santo being general power of attorney. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed it is claimed that he is in cultivating possession of the land and the defendant -petitioners have no concern with the suit property. Alongwith the plant, an application under Order XXXIX Rues 1 and 2 of the Code seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendant -petitioners from dispossessing the plaintiff -respondent from the suit land was also filed.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the defendant -petitioners, the claim of the plaintiff -respondent asserting that he is owner in possession of the suit land has been controverted and it is claimed that in fact the defendant -petitioners are owners in possession of the suit property. The defendant -petitioners have also explained the inheritance by making various other averments. In the end, it was prayed that the application of the plaintiff -respondent filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code be dismissed. Both the Courts below placed heavy reliance on the sale deed and general power of attorney dated 15.3.2001 and 11.9.2000 receptively. Further reliance was placed on the sanctioning of mutation in favour of the plaintiff -respondent and photostat copy of the jamabandi. On the basis of overwhelming documentary evidence in favour of the plaintiff -respondent, the Civil Judge allowed the application for an interim injunction and the appeal filed before the Additional District Judge has been dismissed. The view of the Additional District Judge can be ascertained from paragraphs 8, 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under: -