AJIT SINGH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and respondent No. 2 were the joint owners of land measuring 71 Kanals 15 Marlas. The latter sold his half share to respondent No. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering in his possession. It was alleged by the plaintiff that previously his mother Amrit Kaur was in possession of the property who transferred the possession in his favour and executed an affidavit admitting his possession. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had been in exclusive possession over the entire land for the last six years but taking advantage of sale deed, defendant-respondent No. 1 was threatening to interfere in his possession.

(2.) ALONG with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. The trial court by order dated July 27, 1990 granted an ex-parte injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from taking possession of specific filed numbers except in due course of law till further orders. The application was contested by the defendants. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 not only transferred his ownership right in respect of his share in the joint holding but he had also transferred physical possession in favour of respondent No. 1. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties and appraising the material brought before it, by order dated January 3, 1990 ordered that respondent No. 1 would maintain status quo regarding Rectangle 359, filed No. 21/22-11), 22/2 (2-13 and would take recourse to due profess of law for getting possession of the remaining field numbers.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that there was nothing on the record to show that the affidavit of his mother, who was recorded to be in possession of the property, was false. He further contended that there was no evidence to show that respondent No. 1 was in possession.