VEER SINGH Vs. UDHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 17.1.1998 dismissed an appeal preferred by Veer Singh and others, defendants in the suit, challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 1.9.1997 granting injunction to the plaintiff as prayed. Udham Singh, plaintiff had filed a suit against the aforestated defendants for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) As averred, the plaintiff and the defendants were co-sharers in joint possession of the suit property as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95. Some dispute arose between the parties in relation to the land in question in the year 1991. Arbitrators were appointed and they gave their award stating that defendants were in possession of the land more than their share and as such, the possession came in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendants and they also disputed the very claim of the plaintiff that plaintiff was a co-sharer.

(3.) Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff which was opposed by the defendants. The learned trial Court vide its detailed order dated 1.9.1997 allowed the application and restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. This order was unsuccessfully assailed in appeal by the defendants in appeal. Consequently, the present revision has been filed against the order of the learned Ist Appellate Court. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the latest Khasra girdawari which was placed on record, the appellants were shown to be in possession of the suit land, and as such the learned Courts have erred in expressing a prima facie view against the defendants, in the suit.