Des Raj vs Mam Chand

V.K. Jhanji, J.

The present petition has been filed by Des Raj defendantpetitioner against whom an order of temporary injunction was passed by the trial Court from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in suit. Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction of the ground that the land in suit alongwith some other land was taken by Consolidation Department from the rightholders of the village for utilising for common purposes. Some other land was utilised for common purpose and the remaining land including the land in suit remained unutilised. The property of the rightholders had been recorded as the property of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan in the revenue record. The plaintiff, however, averred in the plaint that there arose a litigation between the residents of the village which was settled amicably and the possession of the Bachat land including the land in suit was handed over to the plaintiffs and one Ram Kishan. Defendant Des Raj also gave an affidavit that he is not in possession of the suit land and it is the plaintiffs who are in possession of the land in suit. Plaintiffs apprehending threat from Des Raj of their forcible dispossession from the suit land filed the present suit and sought injunction restraining Des Raj defendant from interfering in their possession over the suit land. The suit as well as application for interim injunction was contested by Des Raj on the ground that he was in possession of the suit land being owner as cosharer in Pana, Hinduwan. He admitted that there was a compromise but it was subject to the payment of Rs. 10,000/ per acre to him. It was also alleged that since plaintiffs and one Ram Kishan failed to pay 10,000/possession was never handed over to the plaintiffs and he continued to be in possession of the land in suit.

The learned trial Court, finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs granted ad interim injunction restraining Des Raj from interfering in the possession, of the plaintiffs over the land in suit. Being aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, Des Raj filed appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated July 21, 1990

Des Raj has impugned the said orders in this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Courts below are not justified in law in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. He further submitted that Des Raj has already filed a suit which is pending and this suit ought to have been stayed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no merit in the revision petition. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court after taking into consideration the entries in the revenue record found that plaintiffs are in possession over the land in suit from Kharif 1981 onwards. The correction of Girdawari was made in favour of plaintiff by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Panipat vide order dated February 18, 1982 and the same was done on the statement of Des Raj defendant, who at that time did not deny the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and gave an affidavit dated January 8, 1982 admitting the possession of the plaintiffs. Jamabandi for the year 198384 also shows possession of plaintiffs in the column of cultivation. It was only the Khasra Girdawari of Rabi where possession of Des Raj was shown. The Courts below have rightly concluded that the entry showing Des Raj in possession from Rabi 1989 can not be taken into consideration, change in Girdawari was without any notice and inviolation of the Standing Instructions of Financial Commissioner. It has been held by this Court in Roop Singh and another v. Shri Ram Singh, 1988 PLJ 209 that the entries made in violation of the Standing. Instructions of the Financial Commissioner shall be null and void. Des Raj has failed to show, that any notice was ever served an the plaintiffs before entries in Khasra Girdawari were changed in his favour. In view of this, the Courts below have rightly ignored the stray as shown in Khasra Girdawari for the crop Rabi 1989 showing Des Raj in possesssion as the same was in conflict with the earlier entries where plaintiffs were shown in possession.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit ought to have been stayed by the trial Court is also devoid of any merit as the matter is still pending consideration before the trial Court, which will go into the matter in issue and decide the same in accordance with law.

Consequently the revision petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.