Hari Singh vs Jaswant Singh and Others

Sat Pal, J.—By this order, I am disposing of three revision petitions bearing CR No. 2713 of 1997, 2011 of 1997 and 3017 of 1997 as the point raised in all the three revision petitions is with regard to the land on which the Decree holder Jaswant Singh who is plaintiff in CR No. 2713 of 1997, is claiming physical possession and has also been granted interim injunction by the learned lower appellate court to the effect that he cannot be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.

Mr. Arun Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-defendants in the CR 2713 of 1997 submitted that from the order passed by the learned trial court, it is clear that plaintiff Jaswant Singh got only symbolic possession of the suit land and physical possession was never delivered to Jaswant Singh. It may be relevant to note here that the learned trial court in his order dated 31.1.1997 has observed that as per roznamcha report dated 13.6.1996, only the symbolic possession was given to the plaintiff and physical possession was not released to the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff was not ready to give the costs of the crops and tubewell standing on khasra number 290. The learned counsel further submitted that Hari Singh petitioners-plaintiff in CR 2011 of 1997 was not a party to the litigation which culminated in the compromise decree in favour of Jaswant Singh who was delivered symbolic possession vide repat roznamcha dated 13.6.1996. The learned counsel contended that since Hari Singh is also in joint possession of the suit property, the learned courts below were not correct in refusing the interim injunction in favour of Hari Singh who admittedly was not a party in the proceedings culminated into the compromise decree dated 7.3.1995. The learned counsel, however, submitted that CR 3017 of 1997 has become infructuous as the interim stay was finally granted in favour of Hari Singh.

Mr. Ashok Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jaswant Singh, however, submits that once in terms of roznamcha report said Jaswant Singh was given the symbolic possession, he is deemed to have taken the physical possession also in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Bishan Singh v. Hukam Chand (1989 96 P.L.R. 174. He, therefore, contends that there is no merit in these petitions and all these petitions deserved to be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders. I am of the opinion that the impugned orders do not call for any interference from this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 115 C.P.C. From the order dated 31.1.1997, passed by the learned trial Court it is clear that the symbolic possession of the suit land was given to the Decree Holder Jaswant Singh and the physical possession of the suit land was not released to him by the Patwari and Tahsildar only because of the reason that he refused to pay the costs of the crops. In any case, it can not be disputed that by now all those crops must have been harvested by the defendants who are sons of Hari Singh. Further, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bishan Singh (supra) once it is considered that symbolic possession can be delivered under the decree, the Decree Holder can not be restrained from obtaining physical possession of the land in dispute. So far as Hari Singh who is petitioner in CR 2011 of 1997 is concerned, admittedly, he is father of the defendants who were party to the decree of compromise dated 7.3.1995. In any case, so far, Hari Singh has not filed any suit for setting aside the compromise decree dated 7.3.1995 in terms of which Jaswant Singh is the Decree Holder who was given the symbolic possession of the suit land.

For the reasons recorded herein above, CR 2011 of 1997 and CR 3713 of 1997 are dismissed on merits and CR 3017 of 1997 is dismissed as infructuous. It is, however, made clear that any observation given herein above shall not have any bearing on the merits of the two suits pending before the learned trial Court.