G.R.MAJITHIA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the first appellate Court reversing on appeal that of the trial Court and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from dispossessing him in execution of the decree passed in his favour and against one Krishan Lal in Civil Suit No. 510 dated 5.10.1982.
(2.) THE facts, briefly, are that plot bearing No. B-200 measuring 40-4"x 28-8", situated in Mohalla Harbanspura, Gaushalal Road, Ludhiana, was purchased by respondent Bal Krishan and his two brothers, namely, Krishan Lal and Nanak Chand. The sale deed was registered in favour of Nanak Chand. A family settlement was arrived at on May 16, 1977, between Bal Krishan, Krishan Lal and Nanak Chand, according to which each brother took possession of 1/3rd area of the plot accordingly raised construction thereon. On May 17, 1977 Bal Krishan and Krishan Lal filed a suit against Nanak Chand for declaration with a view to sanctify judicially the said family settlement. A decree was accordingly passed by the Civil Court. Bal Krishan,respondent then filed Civil Suit No. 510 dated 5.10.1982 against Krishan Lal, making Nanak Chand as proforma party, for possession of one room and a Miani (which are in dispute in the present litigation) on the ground that Krishan Lal had taken possession thereof illegally. The suit was contested by Krishan Lal by raising a number of pleas and the suit ended in a decree for possession in favour of Bal Krishan, respondent. Bal Krishan, respondent, took out execution of the decree and the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration that he could not be dispossessed in execution of the civil court's decree. Along with the civil suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The plea taken by Gurdeep Singh, petitioner, was that he was a tenant under Krishan Lal since the year 1982 on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. In the suit, Krishan Lal accepted the stand of Gurdeep Singh, petitioner, while Bal Krishan, respondent, hotly contested the claim of the plaintiff and further raised an objection that his brother had no right to induct a tenant on the disputed property. The learned lower appellate Court in a well-reasoned judgment found that the petitioner, who was claiming title through Krishan Lal, is bound by the decree passed against the latter. He further found that the petitioner did not come with a specific pleas as to on which date he entered into possession. He made a general allegation that he entered into possession in the year 1982. The rent receipt produced by him only shows the collusion between Krishan Lal and the petitioner. He is being dispossessed in pursuance of a decree passed against Krishan Lal. He is claiming his tenancy rights through Krishan Lal. So, he is bound by the decree passed against Krishan Lal. He has got no independent title other than Krishan Lal's. It is settled rule of law that the discretionary orders passed by the courts below are not to be interfered with, unless they are perverse or are not based on evidence. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the discretion was not correctly exercised by the lower appellate court. The order under challenge calls for no interference.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.;