R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) WHETHER long possession per se, if it is without valid title or right to occupy the land/property, gives a right to the occupier to retain such possession against a rightful/lawful owner is going to be adjudicated in the present revision as this aspect of the case is being confronted by the subordinate courts in different litigations and in the High Court also many litigations on this aspect of the law are being entertained.
(2.) THE facts of the case are not much in dispute but still it is necessary on my part to reproduce some of the facts to appreciate the above proposition, which I have propounded in the earlier portion of this judgment. The present revision has been filed by Jit Singh and it has been directed against the judgment dated 12.3.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who set aside the order dated 21.2.1998, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, who allowed the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, and ordered that till the disposal of the suit, the possession of the petitioner should not be disturbed by the defendants.
(3.) JIT Singh, petitioner, filed a suit for injunction alleging that he is in possession of the suit land bearing rectangle No. 17 khasra No. 15/2 (5-2), for the last more than 35/40 years since the time of consolidation. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and they have threatened to take forcible possession. On these broad allegations, the plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction praying that he may not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law and along with the plaint, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, praying that during the pendency of the suit, his possession should not be disturbed.;