SATYA PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Additional FTC, Shimla, H.P. returned findings against the defendants therein/petitioner No.1 and respondents No. 3 to 5 herein (for short "the defendants") on preliminary issues No. 1 and 2 as stand extracted hereinafter. The defendant No. 1/petitoner herein stands aggrieved by the aforesaid findings rendered thereon by the learned trial Court, hence he stands constrained to therefrom institute herebefore the instant revision petition.

(2.) An incisive perusal of the plaint unveils of the plaintiffs/respondents herein (for short "the plaintiffs) claiming a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit property vis-à-vis the defendants. A scanning of the plaint also unveils of the plaintiffs acquiescing to the factum of the defendants holding unauthorized possession of the suit land. For reasons assigned hereinafter hence prima-facie the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction ventilated qua the suit property by the plaintiffs vis-à-vis the defendants may falter.

(3.) The plaintiffs had on various grounds delineated in the plaint assailed the validity of the relevant mutation(s) attested qua the suit land qua the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting defendants. Further more the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction stands thereupon erected by the plaintiffs, relief whereof for reasons hereinafter assigned may primafacie stagger besides the effect of the plaintiffs' acquiescing qua the contesting defendants holding unauthorized possession of the suit land is qua theirs standing enjoined to apartfrom challenging the efficacy of the relevant mutation(s) attested qua the suit property vis-à-vis the predecessor-ininterest of the contesting defendants, to also claim a relief of restoration of possession of the suit property from them. However, the plaintiffs omit to both seek a declaratory decree qua setting aside of the relevant mutation(s) attested qua the suit land by the revenue authority vis-à-vis the predecessor in interest of the contesting defendants also omit to ask for a consequential relief for restoration of possession of the suit property to them from the contesting defendants.