GURJANT SINGH Vs. CHHOTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Ist Appellate Court dated 14. 2. 1997. Vide this order, the learned Ist Appellate Court while maintaining the order of the trial Court partially allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff in the suit. The case of petitioner herein is that he had filed the suit claiming that he is owner in possession of 4 kanals of, land comprised in Khasra Nos. 25//15/l (2-0) and 15/2 (2-0) in Village Shekhpura. He purchased the said land for a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 vide registered sale-deed No. 1936 dated 14. 2. 1978. As the defendants were casting cloud over his right and pos session, the necessity of filing the suit had arisen. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that the defendants were owners by way of adverse possession of the property in question, though the factum of sale-deed is not disputed.

(2.) ON prima facie view of the matter, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of Khasra Nos. 25//15/2 measuring 2 kanals and issued injunction in regard thereto, while in regard to Khasra No. 25//15/1 relief of injunction was declined. The basic argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the very foundation of the claim of the petitioner was registered sale-deed dated 14. 2. 1978. Once the sale-deed is accepted then there could be no justification for excluding any part of the land mentioned in the sale deed. It is not disputed that the sale-deed which is a registered document relates to Khasra No. 25//15/2 as well as 15/1. Either the document would ultimately be held to be sham transaction as pleaded or would be held to be a genuine document in its entirety. At this stage, the Court is only concerned with the prima facie view and likelihood of irreparable loss being caused to the petitioner, The petitioner who claims to be in possession, has been granted partial relief by the learned courts below and if he is dispossessed of if his possession is interfered with during the pendency of the suit, his entire suit would become infructuous and he is bound to suffer irreparable loss and damage. I find it very difficult to accept the view expressed by the learned courts below. The doctrine of severalty apply to a document in the manner in which it has been applied to by the learned courts below. The sale deed gives a definite right to the petitioner over the entire land which is stated in the sale deed at least at this stage, the view expressed by the courts below does not appear to be in consonance with the settled principle of law or the principle governing the interpretation of document. Consequently, this revision is allowed. The orders of the learned courts below are modified to the extent that relief of injunction granted shall operate to the entire land of 4 kanals comprised in Khasra Nos. 25//15/1 and 15/2. There shall be no order as to costs.