PADAM Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Padam, plaintiff petitioner, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him from the same except in due course of law. He claimed himself to be in possession of the suit property as a tenant under the defendants on payment of Rs. 1,400/- per acre per year. It was averred in the plaint that the defendants were persons of aggressive temperament and disposition and they intended to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, was filed by the plaintiff seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land.

(2.) The suit and the application were resisted by the defendants, who pleaded that the plaintiff was neither a tenant over the suit land nor was he in possession thereof. He, in collusion with the Revenue Patwari got a khasra girdawari entry changed in his favour and wanted to occupy the suit land.

(3.) In support of his case, the plaintiff produced a khasra girdawari for Rabi 1983 in which he was shown to be tenant under the defendants on payment of Rs. 1,400/- per acre per year. The plaintiff had not produced the copy of the report of the Daily Diary of the Patwari evidencing induction of the plaintiff as a tenant on the land in dispute. The trial Judge drew a presumption against the plaintiff that no notice of the change was given to the defendants who were earlier recorded in possession of the suit land. No importance was attached to the single and stray entry in the khasra girdawari in favour of the plaintiff. He dismissed the application for ad interim injunction. The appeal filed by the plaintiff failed and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. A copy of the Daily Diary Report of the Patwari was produced in the appellate Court. However, no reliance was placed on it. The report did not mention as to whether the defendants or any of them had appeared before the Patwari for correcting the entry in the khasra girdawri. There is no evidence to establish that a change in possession had taken place. Khasra girdawaris for the subsequent crops of Kharif 1983 and Rabi 1984 were even not produced though the suit was filed on 17th May, 1984. This shows that there was only one entry in the name of the plaintiff. There had been no compliance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner regarding the correction of the khasra girdawaris. In fact, during the pendency of the appeal, the khasra girdawari had been got corrected by the defendants-respondents and the possession of the land was shown to be with the defendants.