Premesh vs Raju

N. Kumar, J.—This is plaintiffs writ petition challenging the order passed by the two Courts below concurrently holding that the plaintiff has not prima-facie established a case for grant of temporary injunction.

The case of the plaintiff is that, the schedule property belongs to one Kantriment who was granted land and consequently mutation entry was made. Kantriment, during his lifetime, made a varadi before revenue authorities and got entered the name of plaintiff. Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Kantriment has no issues. He has left behind no Will. When plaintiffs possession was disturbed by defendant, he was constrained to file a suit for decree of permanent injunction, also filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial court declined to grant the order of temporary injunction on the ground that, the plaintiff has failed to establish right in the property and the mutation entries do not constitute sufficient material to hold that, he is in prima-facie possession of the property. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred which came to be dismissed. Against the said order, present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for petitioner assailing the impugned order contends that, when mutation entries were standing in the name of the plaintiff, defendants have not manner of right and further contends that one of the property is in existence at all. The Court below committed serious error in not granting order of temporary injunction.

I do not find any substance in the said submission. The property belongs to Kantriment. Plaintiff is not claiming any right in the property in a manner known to law. His entire claim is based on mutation entry. Unless plaintiff acquires interest in immovable property, revenue authorities could not have mutated his name in the revenue records. Only if mutation entry is made in accordance with law, then presumption u/s 133 of the Land Revenue Act arises, not otherwise. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the entry of his name in the mutation register and contend that he is in possession of the property. The said observation cannot be found fault with. There is no merit. Petition is dismissed.