MAUJI RAM Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute is as to who is in possession of killa Nos. 24 and 25 of Rectangle No. 61. Petitioners as well as respondents are joint owners of the land described in killa Nos 24 and 25. Respondents in suit for permanent injunction, sought temporary injunction on the ground that they are in exclusive possession of these killas. Application of ad-interim injunction on contest was dismissed. On appeal filed by the respondents, order of the trial Court was set aside and the defendants (petitioners herein) were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. This order is being challenged by the defendants in the present revision petition.

(2.) Respondents in order to establish their possession, placed reliance on the entries made in the copies of khasra girdawri in respect of suit land from Kharif 1987 to 1990. In these Khasra girdwaries, Daya Kaur, Gulab Kaur and Sucha as well as the plaintiffs are recorded to be in possession. The trial court was of the view that entries made in these khasra girdwaries stand rebutted in view of the entries in favour of defendant in canal Khatoni as well as because of tubewell belonging to the defendants in killa No. 25 and water-tank in Killa No. 24 for irrigation. The trial Court also took into consideration that Sudha who was shown to be in possession, died long back and Daya Kaur and Gulab Kaur were married more than 10 years ago and were residing outside the village. The first appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court primarily on the ground that Nehra Girdawaries of canal khatonies could not take precedent over the entries made in khasra girdawaries.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent made a reference to judgments of this court rendered in Secretary to Govt. Ministry of Home Affairs, Punjab Chandigarh v. Krishan Kumar, 1985 88 PunLR 535, and in Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. Uppal Engg. Pvt. Ltd.,1991 1 PunLJ 554 , to contend that this court should not interfere in the discretion exercised by the first appellate Court. According to him, even if the order is right or wrong, the same cannot be interfered. It is true that revisional Court should not interfere in the discretion exercised by the first appellate Court. However, in the present case, after taking into consideration the various documents brought on record, I am of the considered view that plaintiffs have not been able to conclusively establish on record that they are in possession of killa Nos. 24 and 25. In the khasra girdawaries, Daya Kaur Gulab Kaur and Sudha have been shown to be in possession along with the plaintiffs. Sudha died long back, where as Daya Kaur and Gulab Kaur are not residing in the village for the last 10 years. According to the counsel for the plaintiffs, they are cultivating the land on their behalf. This fact cannot be accepted as correct at this stage as the plaintiffs have yet to lead evidence to prove this. The first appellate Court while granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs has not considered the receipts of water-charges in favour of defendants as well as laying of water-pipes by the defendants for taking water to killa Nos. 24 and 25. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the order of the first appellant Court cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is set aside.