PREM SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners along with one Sher Singh were the plaintiffs. They brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 754 kanals 15 marlas situate within the limits of village-Pharaur belonged to Patti Hinduian and the mutation recorded respecting the said land in the name of Gram Panchayat was wrong. They also claimed perpetual injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat of that village from disturbing their possession of land measuring 57 kanals 13 marlas.

(2.) Their case was that they were owners of land in Patti Hinduian; that the Revenue Authorities had gone wrong in mutating the land measuring 754 kanals 15 marlas in the name of Gram Panchayat; and that they were in possession of the land measuring 57 kanals 13 marlas out of the aforesaid land as lessees of the Gram Panchayat. Along with the suit they moved an application for temporary injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat to dispossess them from the aforesaid land measuring 57 kanals 13 marlas during the pendency of the suit. The Gram Panchayat contested that application and represented that they would not take forcible possession of the aforesaid land and would resort to lawful methods only. The trial Court declined the ad interim injunction and dismissed that application. Against the dismissal of that application, the appellants-petitioners went in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellant powers). Therefore, they came to this Court in this revision.

(3.) The principles governing the grant of ad interim injunction are well recognised. In order to obtain one, the plaintiff has to show that he has a prima facie case, and the denial of the same would cause irreparable loss to him, and the balance of convenience favours the grant of the same. The grant of ad interim injunction is a discretionary relief and, therefore, the Appellate Court as well as the Revisional Court would be sow in interfering with the order of the trial Court if the same has been passed by it after taking into consideration the principles governing the same. In the case in hand, the petitioners claimed themselves to be co-owners of land in Patti Hinduian. The said allegation was controverted by the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, if the petitioners can, at the most, claim that they have a prima facie case. But, then they had taken possession of the land from the Gram Panchayat on lease. Therefore, in equity they were required to restore the land to the Gram Panchayat before challenging its title. Once before, the petitioners had brought a similar suit, and had failed therein. Sher Singh had withdrawn from the suit, on September 25, 1975. It is disclosed by Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the respondents, that the Gram Panchayat had moved an application for ejectment of the petitioners and they had made statement before the Assistant Collector on March 24, 1975 that they would vacate the land on June 1, 1975. Instead of keeping their word, they had filed the suit in the month of August 1975. In view of the said circumstances, the contention of Mr. Malik that the intention of the petitioners is to keep the possession of the land as long as they can and thereby to debar the Gram Panchayat from enjoying its fruits, cannot be said to be wrong. So, the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the Gram Panchayat and did not justify the grant of ad interim injunction. The petitioners would not suffer any loss if the Gram Panchayat succeeds in taking possession of the land in due process of law.