BRIJ LAL Vs. SANJAY KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The bone of contentions in the present lis is an old shed allegedly constructed by the petitioner herein (plaintiff in the trial Court) about 40 years ago, over the land bearing Khasra No.1116/1, measuring 0-01-21 hectares, situated in Mohal Dhial, Mauza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. He allegedly obtained a contract of Jhol (liquor) and the shed allegedly was constructed by him to set-up the unit of Jhol over the land in question. The suit land ultimately was purchased by one Shanti Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents-defendants. In the demarcation of the land amongst the co-sharers the same fell into the share of said Shanti Lal. While the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the possession of the suit land could not be delivered to said Shri Shanti Lal on account of the same, by way of construction of shed, was in his possession, the respondentsdefendants claim that the possession thereof was also delivered to them by the revenue staff along with others.

(2.) Both Courts below, on consideration of the given facts and circumstances and also the documents available on record has concluded that neither there exists any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff nor the balance of convenience lies in his favour. Also that the comparative mischief in the event of the interim injunction as sought is granted would be greater to the respondents-defendants as compared to the petitioner-plaintiff. The application for interim injunction filed along with the suit as such has been dismissed by learned trial Court. Learned lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) On hearing learned counsel on both sides and going through the records, admittedly, the suit land in partition fell into the share of Shanti Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondentsdefendants, however, the material available on record at this stage is not sufficient even to form an opinion, prima facie that the possession of the suit land over which the shed is in existence was delivered to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants by the revenue agencies after partition of the suit land.