- (1.) The trial Court has granted the plaintiff-respondent a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with the respondent's possession over the land in dispute under the following circumstances :- The appellants had agreed to sell and the plaintiff-respondent had agreed to purchase the land in dispute and two writings had been executed between the parties in this connection. A major portion of the sale price was described to have been paid to the owner and the vendee's case was that possession of the land had been transferred to him under the agreement of sale before the transaction could be completed by the formal execution and registration of the conveyance deed. There being some vacillation or delay on the owner's part to complete the transaction, the vendee had filed a suit for specific performance and had prayed for interim relief restraining the appellants from disturbing the respondent's possession over the land.
(2.) The point in controversy between the parties is whether possession of the land had been transferred to the proposed vendee under the agreement of sale. There were entries in Khasra Girdawaris which showed that the vendee had succeeded in obtaining possession. These entries have been ordered to be corrected on an application filed by the appellants before the revenue authorities but once the disputes have arisen between the parties, the controversy cannot be allowed to be transferred for decision to the revenue authorities. If any orders for the correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris have been made by these authorities, they would hardly be relevant in the civil proceedings and the evidence adduced by the parties in connection with the prayer for the correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris shall have to be assessed independently by the civil Courts. A Local Commissioner appointed by the trial Court had also reported that the respondent was in possession of the land in dispute. Under the circumstances, there was prima facie evidence about the plaintiff-respondent having succeeded in obtaining possession of the land under the agreement of sale. No final verdict can, however, be given as to which party is in possession unless the parties have had a full opportunity of examining their entire evidence. The order under appeal is apparently intended to maintain the status quo with regard to possession over the land as it existed on the date of the passing of the temporary injunction on 9.6.1970 in the absence of the appellants. This order had been made absolute by the trial Court on 26.6.1971 after hearing them. It is, however, made clear that this temporary injunction is not supposed to authorise any party to disturb the actual physical possession of the opposite party. The temporary injunction may, however, appear to be fully justified as the plaintiff-respondent had made out a prima facie case.
(3.) The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the clarification made above. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.;