Ranjit Singh and Others vs Rukmani Devi

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendants Ranjit Singh etc. have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 8.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa and order dated 15.2.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Respondent-plaintiff Rukmani Devi has filed suit against defendants/petitioners alleging that she is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 8 kanals having purchased it vide sale deed dated 11.3.2011 from Piara Singh who was exclusive owner in possession thereof pursuant to partition effected by revenue court. Defendants have no concern with the suit land but they tried to dispossess the plaintiff there from. Plaintiff claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so. Temporary injunction to the same effect was also sought during the pendency of the suit by filing separate application.

Defendants resisted the suit and the application and pleaded that Piara Singh had already sold his entire 1/8th share in joint land measuring 150 kanals vide two sale deeds dated 17.12.1973 in favour of Mehnga Singh and Kartar Singh who sold the same to the defendants but due to wrong entry in the jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and subsequent revenue record, there was erroneous entry regarding share of Piara Singh in the suit land. Pat Ram shown to have sold 8 kanals land whereas in fact Piara Singh had sold the same to Kartar Singh. Exparte partition orders have been challenged by the defendants by filing separate suit.

Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 8.10.2011 allowed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction and said order has been upheld by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 15.2.2012. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners emphatically contended that plaintiff is taking advantage of wrong entries in the revenue record as error crept in jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and carried forward in subsequent revenue record. Reference was made to sale deeds dated 17.12.1973 executed by Puran Singh.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. In the revenue record, defendants or their predecessors were never recorded to be in exclusive possession of the suit land. On the other hand, pursuant to partition order which has not yet been set aside, Piara Singh was allotted suit land and prima facie became exclusive owner in possession thereof and he sold the same to the plaintiff-respondent who, therefore, prima facie became exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. In view of this documentary evidence, prima facie plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and is, therefore, entitled to temporary injunction as granted by the courts below. At this stage, question of title or ownership is not to be looked into and the question of prima facie possession only has to be examined. On the basis of long standing revenue record, plaintiff is prima facie in exclusive possession of the suit land whereas defendants never came in exclusive possession of the suit land. In view of the aforesaid, courts below have rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff-respondent. Impugned orders of the courts below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. However, nothing stated hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.