MAST RAM Vs. BHIKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein vide registered sale -deed dated 24 -1 -1975 purchased two pieces of land comprising Khasra No. 424 and 429 in Mohal Sevag, Tehsil Mandi. According to the petitioner, the land in question was previously under the self -cultivation of the vendors who put the petitioner in actual physical possession of this land at the time of the sale. Soon after the sale, however, on 20 5 -1973 the respondents, according to the allegations of the petitioner, cut and removed the entire crop of wheat standing on the aforesaid land resulting in a loss of about Rs. 350/ - to the petitioner. The respondents were further alleged to have given open threats that they would occupy the aforesaid land and this made the present petitioner to file a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi against the respondents praying for issue of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the land in question and in the alternative a prayer was made that if it be found that the respondents had acquired possession during the pendency of the suit, a decree for possession be also passed in his favour. The petitioner further claimed a decree for Rs. 350/ - on account of compensation for the crop.

(2.) Along with the suit, the plaintiff moved an application in the trial Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the issue of atemporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question in any manner during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) An ex parte ad -interim injunction was granted by the trial Court on that application. Respondent No. 1 then moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4, C. P. C. before the trial Court for vacation of the ex pane injunction. The case of this respondent was that out of the land in dispute which comprises of two Khasra numbers, he was in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 4 9 as non -occupancy tenant since before the sale in favour of the present petitioner and that he alone bad been cultivating this land throughout The further contention of this respondent was that the entries in the revenue record had been wrongly recorded in favour of the land owner and on coming to know of the same he moved the revenue authorities for correction of such entries. The proceedings for such correction were still pending when the petitioner availing himself of the wrong entries in the revenue record approached the Court with his suit and obtained the ex parte stay order. He claimed no interest in the other Khasra No. 424.