HANUMAN Vs. GIARSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul, dated 24.2.1998 and the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul dated 26.9.1998. The learned trial Court had dismissed the application seeking ad-interim injunction and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul.

(2.) The petitioners had filed a civil suit for a declaration that they are owners in possession of the agricultural land in controversy and that the respondents have no concern with the ownership and possession of the same. It was claimed further that ownership entry in the name of Giarsi Lal respondent in the revenue record is totally wrong and illegal.

(3.) The petitioners had claimed that the total land in controversy was owned as Mushtarka Malkam. It was in possession of Bhai Ram father of petitioner No. 1 and Har Lal father of petitioners 2 and 3 and one Yad Ram. They continued to be in possession of it since 1965. Yad Ram had died in 1972. After his death Bhai Ram and Har Lal continued in occupation of the land. They became owners by adverse possession. Bhai Ram died on 18.11.1996 and Har Lal died on 17.8.1992. Now they claim that they are in possession and have become owners of the land in question. According to the petitioners 12 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land was acquired by Irrigation Department of Haryana. Bhai Ram and Har Lal got compensation and the remaining land remained in their possession. In 1966 mutation was sanctioned in the name of one Bhagoti. She died on 12.4.1968. Her share was inherited by Smt. Sarwan vide mutation No. 2310. Again vide mutation No. 2359 the land was mutated in favour of one Udda son of Jaria. Vide mutation No. 2360 an area measuring 28 Kanals was mutated in favour of respondent No. 1 who was shown to have purchased it in an auction. The plaintiffs-petitioners contended that the name of the respondent-defendants have wrongly been shown in the revenue record. According to them Giarsi Lal defendant has no concern with this land. They apprehend dispossession, and therefore, the ad-interim injunction was prayed.