Smt. Gauran Devi vs Balbir Singh

N.K. Aggarwal, J.—This is a review petition by the defendants under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114, Civil Procedure Code, seeking review of the order dated October 13, 1999 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1694 of 1998.

The defendants had, in the aforesaid revision petition, challenged the orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court whereby the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1 & 2 had been allowed. this Court vide order dated October 13, 1999 did not find any merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same.

Shri R.S. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants, has argued that the defendants were the owners of the suit land. Plaintiff, Balbir Singh, had forged a sale deed dated April 11,1969 in respect of the land measuring 16 Kanals. A civil suit was filed challenging the sale deed. Balbir Singh filed a consenting written statement and on that basis the suit was decreed. Sh. Mittal has argued that the defendants arc. by virtue Of the judgment and decree dated November 4, 1969, continuing in possession of the land as the owners. They have been recorded as such in the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72. It is also argued by Shri Mittal that the defendants could not be expected to have sold the land which is shown in the Aks-Shazra in the middle of the area. No prudent person would do so. Shri Mittal has submitted that the defendants are owners in possession and, therefore, the judgment and decree dated November 4,1969 till in force would help them to retain possession. It is also argued that the mutation sanctioned, in favour of the plaintiff and the subsequent entries in the Jamabandis recorded by the Revenue Officer would not entitle the plaintiff to claim any title, right or interest in the suit land. Shri Mittal has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ammar Ahmed Khan and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein it has been laid down that the entries appearing in the record of rights arc not the foundation of title but are mere items of evidence. In Hazari v. Roop Narain, AIR 1974 P&H 847. it has been held that an adverse entry in the record of rights did not per se oblige the person in possession of land to sue for a declaration of title.

On a consideration of the matter, it is found that this Court has considered all the aspects of the matter while deciding the revision petition. No mistake has been pointed out in the order. this Court would not, in a review petition, re-examine the matter afresh. The evidence adduced by both the parties before the trial Court has been considered so as to sec if there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the Jamabandis for the years 1976-77, 1981 -82, 1986-87 and 1991-92 showed the plaintiff to be in possession of the land. Mutation was also sanctioned in their favour.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is found no reason to review the order of this Court. The review petition is found to have no merit. It is. therefore, dismissed in limine.