REETA DATTA Vs. RAJIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three civil revision petitions are between the same parties and in respect of the same properties. The dispute is between brother and sister and the claim is made by the brother contending that the properties are all ancestral in which he has a 2/3rd share and admits the sister to a 1/3rd share. The sister's contention is that the property, which is in suit, is exclusive property of the sister which she has acquired through a Will as a beneficiary from her mother. The mother herself was a beneficiary of the Will from the father -Tilak Raj. In the brother's suit for a declaration that he is entitled to 2/3rd share and the sister to 1/3rd share, he has sought for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. In the sister's suit, she has sought for a declaration that she is the owner of the whole property and sought for injunction. Yet another suit has been at the instance of the brother seeking for injunction against the sister from securing an electricity connection. All the three suits are said to be pending and the three civil revision petitions arise out of the interlocutory orders passed in the three different suits. In the manner of disposal of the application for injunction, the court below has ordered preservation of status quo which both parties feel aggrieved about. The brother would refer to the statement of the sister in the mutation proceedings where she is reported to have admitted that all the properties are in the possession of the brother. The sister herself would refer to the admissions made by the brother immediately after the lifetime of the father and when the properties were mutated in the name of his mother admitting to the existence of Will, said to have been executed by the father. Subsequent to the death of the mother, things have come to a head when the sister made a claim in relation to the whole property through a Will said to have been executed by her mother. She would rely on the jamabandi entries of the years from 2008 -09 till date referring to her as a person in possession of the properties.

(2.) IT appears that the sister had, in her own suit for injunction, originally sought for interim injunction and the Court had granted an order of status quo. The plaintiff discreetly withdrew her application and did not press further. It is only when the brother sought for injunction in his own suit for declaration of the respective shares as 2/3rd and 1/3rd between himself and the sister that the sister now wants to press forth her objection to the claim for injunction by the brother.

(3.) THE cutting of the crops may leave the property in a contentious stage of both the parties scrambling for possession. I will not make much of the fact that the sister stated that the brother had been in exclusive possession of the property in mutation proceedings. The possession to vacant land, after trees are cut must follow prima facie claims to title. The sister relies on a Will and also on the revenue entries standing in her name. After the crops are cut, I am of the view that it should be the sister whose possession must be protected for that would follow what is stated from the revenue entries. The brother appears to have obtained substantial benefits already in relation to the family properties to the extent of 12 V2 acres of land. He will not, therefore, be seriously prejudiced, if he is prevented from in any manner enjoying the suit property till the final conclusion of the proceedings. This observation is purely provisional and will not colour the course of trial before the court below regarding the entitlement to declaration and injunction in the manner sought for by the sister.