RAM LAL Vs. CHUNNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of order dtd. 25/8/2021 passed by Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah (hereinafter referred to as the"Trial Court") in an application seeking grant of interim injunction in a Civil Cuit titled "Chunni Devi Vs. Ram Lal and Anr.", whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application of the plaintiff/respondent herein restraining the defendant/appellant herein from interfering in the possession of plaintiff/respondentover the suit land, appellant seeks setting-aside thereof.

(2.) The order impugned is being challenged, precisely, on the grounds that the same is contrary to the facts and law; that theTrial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the pleadings in the suit, particularly, the written statement, wherein the appellant/defendant has specifically stated that he is in possession of the suit land and his possession has been recorded in Khasra Girdwari of 2020-21; that no document in support of possession had been placed on record by the plaintiff/respondent; that the Trial Court has fallen in a grave error by overlooking the provisions of Land Revenue Act; thatTrial Court ought to have passed order of status-quo as the possession was being claimed by both the parties; that there was no case for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal as projected by appellant/defendant are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking Decree for Declaration as well as Decree for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against defendant/appellant on the ground that plaintiff/respondent is sole owner in possession of land measuring 05 Kanals and 08 Marlas comprising Survey No.202 situated at Village Draie, Tehsil Gandoh Bhalessa by virtue of Will Deed executed by one person, namely, Balku S/o Prabhu Megh, R/o Draie, Tehsil Gandoh on 1/10/1993. The respondent/ plaintiff also sought injunction to restrain the defendant/appellant from interfering on the ground that he had no right or title over the suit land and the illegal entry in the revenue record is void. The plaintiff/respondent also pleaded in the suit that after death of aforenamed Balku, mutation No.227 dtd. 1/1/2003 of Village Draie, Tehsil Gandoh Bhalessa, was attested by Tehsildar, declaring her to be the sole owner and the entries regarding the same were made in the revenue record. The revenue officials by misusing the powers, made an illegal entry in Kharief 1993 in favour of the appellant/defendant by creating new tenancy record to utter disrespect to law. It has also been pleaded by plaintiff/respondent that revenue officials, by transgressing their power, made illegal and contrary entry, which cannotbind the rights of the plaintiff as the same is non est in the eye of law and is required to be declared as null and void. The defendant/appellant, who is having no right or title in respect of the suit land,is interfering in the same. The defendant/appellant herein while denying the claim putforth by the plaintiff/respondent, raised counter-claim that he is in possession of the land since 1993-94 and defendant/appellant had been openly in public claiming ownership in the suit land and dealing with such land since 1993 and is claiming; that he has become owner of the land since they are in possession for the last more than twelve (12) years. The plaintiff/ respondent got knowledge of sale agreement dtd. 20/11/1994 executed by her son in favour of the defendant/appellant in 1994, when second instalment of price of land was paid to her. She never objected to it till date that the plaintiff had also exceeded to act on his son, namely, Des Raj, by not objecting or claiming the possession back of suit land, as is evident in the revenue record. The defendant/ appellant claimed that he is cultivating the land as owner. The claim put forth by the defendant/appellant in the written statement is that possession of the land has been given to him on the execution of the agreement to sell executed by the son of the respondent/plaintiff and he is in possession since 1994, when such agreement to sell was executed and he also claim that his possession has matured into ownership as he is in possession for last more than twelve years within the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent and the public at large.