JARNAIL SINGH Vs. MAHESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CR No. 4268 of 2011 and COCP No. 804 of 2012 as both the cases address the same issue. The revision is against the order declining a prayer for injunction at an interlocutory stage pending suit. The petitioner who was the plaintiff in the suit has sought for declaration that the order passed by the Collector directing the property to be redeemed under the Redemption of Mortgage (Punjab) Act, 1913 was illegal, null and void and for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession. The subject matter of suit is described to be an agricultural land of 14 Bighas and 7 biswas and claimed by the plaintiff to be Nazool land that has been enjoyed by the plaintiff as a member of scheduled caste. The contention was that the respondents purported to secure an order of redemption of the property as though it was held under mortgage by the plaintiff and his predecessor by taking advantage of certain false and manipulated entries. The plaintiff's further contention is that the property admittedly was in his possession and that was how the relief of redemption itself was sought and till the suit is considered and disposed of regarding the validity of the order of redemption, his possession must be protected. If the order of the Collector which is impeached in the suit as null and void were to be given effect to, the very purpose of filing the suit will be defeated.

(2.) THE respondent's contention was that there is a prima facie order of public authority allowing for redemption and the property has also been given possession. The Court cannot therefore grant any injunction. The two courts below accepted the contention of the respondent and held that the respondents were only taking possession of the property as per due process of law and there was nothing on record to show that there was anything illegal or null and void about the order to protect the plaintiff's possession.

(3.) IT will not be safe to rely on assertions of possession, as of present, by the parties on the basis of the redemption order obtained. One aspect is clear on the date of institution of the suit on 29.1.2010 the order passed by the Collector on 23.12.2009 granting redemption of the alleged mortgage had not been put in execution. The suit itself is for a declaration that the order is not valid and the order of redemption is not enforceable.