BHANWAR LAL Vs. MISHRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code hereinafter) against the order dated 6-8-94 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Jodhpur District.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-defendant (in Suit No. 316/93) instituted Suit No. 88/91, as plaintiff, against the present petitioner Bhanwar Lal and the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chokha in the said court for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the plot and the house, described in para No. 1 of the plaint which is situated in Abadi Khasra No. 46, Solankian-Ka-Bas with the allegations that his father Joga Ram purchased this plot from the Mangi Lal, father of the petitioner-Bhanwar Lal, about 70 years back. It was further alleged that, initially, no document regarding transfer of the plot was executed but the possession was transferred by Mangi Lal to Joga Ram and since then they were in actual physical possession of the plot where on a pucca construction was already existing and the same was in use and occupation as a residence. Mangi Lal also executed a sale deed in respect of the disputed property in the year 1980. It was alleged that since the petitioner Bhanwar Lal (defendant in Suit No. 88/91) had raised a dispute about right, title and interest in the disputed property and he was threatening to illegally and forcefully oust the possession of Mishri Lal from the disputed property and it was further alleged that Sarpanch of the village connived with Bhanwar Lal and, therefore, presentation of the civil suit, as above. An application for temporary injunction was also filed with a request to restrain Bhanwar Lal from carrying out threats of the forcefully and illegally evicting him from the disputed property. However, the defendant Bhanwar Lal maintained that the suit property being of his own purchase from the Gram Panchayat was in permissive possession of the plaintiff. Consequently, the trial Court passed an interim order thereby injuncting them to maintain prevalent status quo in regard to the disputed property.

(3.) In the meantime, Bhanwar Lal petitioner filed a Suit No. 316/93, relating to the same property, against Mishri Lal, pleading that the disputed property belonged to him and the same was never transferred by his father to Mishri Lal or Joga Ram. Instead, it was further pleaded that this plot was purchased by him from the Gram Panchayat vide a sale deed dated 3-12-83 and he also obtained possession of the same and that he constructed two rooms and a kitchen on the plot. Since the disputed property was not under actual use as a residence of the plaintiff Bhanwar Lal, the defendant-Mishri Lal approached him to permit him to use and occupy the suit premises and to maintain the same for and on behalf of the plaintiff-Bhanwar Lal and it was on 15-8-82 that Bhanwar Lal delivered the possession of the suit property to Mishri Lal who is since then occupying the same. Thus, Bhanwar Lal has maintained throughout, in both suits, that he is the real owner of the disputed property and the possession of Mishri Lal was merely a permissive one. However, of later, with a dishonest and ulterior motive, Mishri Lal, with a view to grab the disputed property, advanced his claim before the village Gram Panchayat and also filed a suit for injunction as above, against Bhanwar Lal.