- (1.) THE challenge in this revision petition, preferred by Raj Singh son of Kalia and others petitioners -defendants (for brevity "the defendants"), is to the impugned judgment & decree dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure P1), vide which, the trial Court has decreed the suit, instituted by Kuldeep Singh son of Giani Ram, his children and wife respondentsplaintiffs (for short "the plaintiffs"), for a decree of recovery of Rs. 15000/ - as mesne profits, for the use & occupation of the land in litigation by the defendants and the impugned judgment & decree dated 17.4.2003 (Annexure P3), by virtue of which, their appeal (Annexure P2) was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitionersdefendants, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
(3.) EX facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the plaintiffs were not entitled for the use and occupation of the land in dispute and the amount of mesne profits assessed by the Courts below was on higher side, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery against the defendants. The case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that one Ram Sarup son of Telu Ram was the owner and in possession of the agricultural land, measuring 7 Kanals 10 Marlas, situated in village Ujah, District Panipat. They have purchased it for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/ - from the owner, vide registered sale deed dated 24.11.1989.;