BHARAMDEV Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 26.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has upheld the order dated 3.6.1993 passed by the learned trial court by which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 to 10 from interfering into the possession over the suit land was allowed. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) MR . Goel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- defendant Bharamdev submitted that both the Courts below while granting the interim injunction to the plaintiff-respondent have relied on entry of 1991 in the revenue records in favour of the plaintiff and the order dated 5.1.1984 passed by this court in RSA 2119 of 1983. He, however, submitted that the entry of 1991 made in the revenue records was fabricated at the instance of the plaintiff and in the RSA 2119 of 1983, the petitioner-defendant was not a party and as such any observation made in that order cannot be used against the petitioner. He further submitted that even as per the report of the Local Commissioner, the suit land was a vacant spot and only cow dung was found on this plot. He submitted that simply because of some cow dung on the suit plot, it cannot be said that the suit land was in exclusive possession of the plaintiff-respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that it was the admitted case of the respondent that he was a co-sharer and as such he cannot be allowed to raise construction in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu v. Ramsarup, 1981 PLJ 204.

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the plaintiffs had purchased their portion of the suit land vide sale deed dated 14.9.1981 from one Premo. After the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, three sons of Premo filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the said land and the said suit culminated in RSA 2119 of 1983 which was disposed of by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 5.1.1984. From the said judgment, it is evident that the appeal was disposed of in terms of compromise between the parties but prima facie this document shows that the plaintiffs were in possession of the portion of the suit land measuring 4 K 0 M. Even the sale deed dated 14.9.1981 executed by Premo in favour of the plaintiffs shows that the possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs on 14.9.1981 itself. The petitioner-defendant admittedly purchased a share of the suit land on 1.3.1990 i.e. after a lapse of more than eight years from the date when the plaintiffs purchased their share of the suit land. Relying on these facts and also the entry made in the revenue records for the year 1991 showing the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents on the portion measuring 4 K 0 M of the suit land, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs-respondents were entitled to interim injunction during the pendency of the suit and the order of the learned trial court was upheld by the learned lower appellate court. Since both the courts below have relied on the documents on record and the report of the local commissioner which also showed the possession of the plaintiffs on the suit land, it cannot be said that the findings of the courts below are perverse. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that impugned orders passed by the courts below do not call for any interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Bhartu (supra) is not relevant to the facts of the present case as in the present case the defendants have been restrained only from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs pending the decision in the main suit. Since the plaintiffs- respondents had not sought any relief with regard to construction on the suit land in the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 there is no necessity to deal with this point.