D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) LEAVE is granted to learned counsel for the petitioners so as to enable him to convert the cause title of the writ petition into one as under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this matter the order dated 14.7.1993 passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1989 affirming the order dated 25.4.1989 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 278 of 1988, is under challenge.
(2.) SRI Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts have proceeded on the misconceived notion that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property over -looking the documents produced by the defendants in respect of the defence contention about possession. According to him those documents clearly show that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. Both the courts below had wrongly disbelieved the fact of possession by the defendants and had misconstrued the documents produced by the defendants. According to him the orders passed by both the courts below suffer from perversity. He further contends that in the suit for injunction the possession is to be looked into. The title need not to be gone into for the purposes of deciding the question of grant of injunction. The injunction is granted for the purposes of preserving the present state of things. According to him the defendant being in possession thereof as has been adequately proved by means of production of relevant documents, both the courts below have arrived at a wrong conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession and such finding therefore, can not be sustained. Consequently the order can not be sustained. On these grounds he has assailed the impugned orders. Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand contends that both the courts having found, after considering relevant materials, produced before it, the plaintiff to be in possession. The said finding has assumed the character of concurrent finding of fact. According to him while exercising revisional jurisdiction the revisional court is slow in interfering with the finding of fact, particularly when the same has been concurrently found by the two courts below. Sri Arora has pointed out the relevant portion from both the judgments in order to show that both the courts below have considered the relevant materials placed before it and have arrived at a considered conclusion on the basis of material placed before it that the plaintiff was in possession. Therefore, according to him, the orders passed by the courts below can not be termed as perverse.
(3.) AFTER having heard Sri Tandon and Sri Arora, it appears that the trial court had found after considering the relevant materials that the plaintiff has been able to prima facie prove the ownership and possession. In the order of the lower appellate court it appears that the said court had also found the plaintiff to be recorded bhumidhar of the disputed land and that the plaintiff is also in possession thereof. After perusing the said orders, it appears that the Appellate Court had not only considered the materials placed before the trial court, it has also considered the documents which were sought to be placed before the court by way of additional evidence. He has discussed the relevant documents and had based his order supported by reasons. He has also considered the case of the defendant and come to a finding that the defendant had not proved the title though they have claimed right on the basis of fact that the plaintiff had obtained help of the defendant for irrigating the land.;