KALUWA Vs. NATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant filed a suit on 17 -5 -67 in the court of the S.D.O. Bharatpur against the non -applicant u/s 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration and permanent injunction with regards to land in khasra No. 1881 measuring four bighas situated in Chak No. 2, town Bharatpur. The S.D.O. Bharatpur after hearing the parties, under his order dated 1 -7 -67, issued a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land.

(2.) Having felt aggrieved against this order the defendant came up in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned R.A.A. found on the admission of the plaintiff that the disputed land stood in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari in the khata and cultivating possession of the defendant. It was, however, claimed by the plaintiff that he had been in the cultivating possession of the land as a sub -tenant on payment of rent from S. 2012 onwardi. The trial court relying on the affidavits of the plaintiff and his witnesses and the report of the Commissioner that the plaintiff lived in his hut constructed on the. disputed land and had been cultivating it for the last 11 -12 years, granted the temporary injunction. But the R.A.A. observed that the land records did not support the plaintiff who had neither produced any contract of tenancy nor any receipts for payment of rent. It was observed by the learned R.A.A. that the mere fact of having constructed the hut on the disputed land or a mere allegation of having cultivated the land did not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant which was essen -stial for the grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal and vacated the temporary injunction issued by the S.D.O. Bharatpur in favour of the plaintiff vide his order dated 1 -7 -67.

(3.) In attacking this order the learned counsel for the applicant has laid stress on the report of the Commissioner and the statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses that he was in possession of the land. It is argued that temporary injunction is granted on the basis of prima facie proof of possession and the question of the right and title of the parties remains to be determined in the main case. It is contended that it was premature on the part of the learned R.A.A. to have examined this issue. It is contended that in relying upon the revenue entries, the learned R.A.A. has fallen into an error for as a matter of fact through this suit the plaintiff seeks to challenge the veracity of the entries in the revenue records.