BABU RAM Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dtd. 23/4/2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan, Himachal Pradesh (camp at Arki) in CMA No. 2AK/14/2015, reversing order dtd. 12/9/2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divison) Arki in CMA No. 291/6 of 2010, in CS No. 162 of 2009, whereby learned trial court while allowing application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, having been filed by the respondents-defendants (herein after referred to as the defendants) directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit property till the disposal of the main suit, petitioners-plaintiffs have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan, and thereafter, restore the order passed by the learned trial court.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the effect that they are joint co-owners in possession of the suit land, total measuring 291.10 bighas situate at village Banwa, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, to the extent of 89/291 shares and entries in the revenue record contrary to the same are illegal. Besides above, plaintiffs also prayed for decree for injunction, restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land by raising construction, cutting trees, alienating the same and committing any act of wastage and damage and loss (Annexure P-1). Alongwith the aforesaid plaint, plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, praying therein to grant ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land by raising construction, cutting trees and alienating the same till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) While filing written statement as well as reply to the stay application, defendants claimed that entries in the revenue record are correct and as such, plaintiffs have no prima-facie case. They categorically stated that entries are existing in their favour since 1925 and thereafter, consolidation operation took place in the year, 1962, but no steps, if any, were ever taken by the plaintiffs to get the revenue entries corrected. Defendants also claimed ownership and possession of the suit land to the total exclusion of the plaintiffs and submitted that they have no right, title and interest of any kind over the suit land.