G.C. Garg, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 3250 and 3261 of 1993.
(2.) PETITIONER , Manshu Rani filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant -respondents from interfering in his possession over a piece of land as detailed in the plaint. Along with the suit, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad interim injunction. It was prayed that he was in possession of the land in dispute and the defendants were trying to interfere in his possession and, therefore, they be restrained from doing so. The trial court by order dated May 13, 1992 allowed the application and restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit and except in due course of law. In the appeal filed by the defendants against the order of the trial Court, learned Additional District Judge by his order dated July 28, 1993 ordered the parties to maintain status quo. He also came to the conclusion that the trial court wrongly held that Manshu was in possession of the suit land. Order of status quo was passed on the ground that both the parties were claiming their respective possession over the suit land. This is how the present revision came to be filed by the plaintiff. It may be stated at the outset that dispossession of the plaintiff was stayed by this court during the pendency of the revision. This apart, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to succeed. Learned trial court while referring to revenue record rightly came to the conclusion that upto the year 1975, Babu Ram father of the defendants was recorded to be in possession of the suit land. Babu Ram died somewhere in the year 1974 or earlier thereto. Neither of the parties to this revision is owner of the land in dispute. In fact the land is recorded to be in the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. The trial court noticed that entry in favour of father of the defendants was changed on the basis of a report in the Roznamcha Wakyati of the Patwari, dated March 31, 1975 and thereafter the plaintiff is recorded to be in Cultivating possession of the land in question. The jamabandis for the year 1975 -76, 1985 -86 and Khasra Girdawaris for the years 1981 -82 to 1986 -87 placed on the record and as noticed by the trial Court, clearly go to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute. The first appellate court reversed the order of the trial court and ordered the parties to maintain status quo only on the ground that prior to the year 1975, father of the defendants had been recorded to be in possession of the land in dispute. May be that is so, but having regard to the change effected in the year 1975 vide report Roznamcha Wakyati dated March 31, 1975, it cannot be said that the defendants continued to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute especially when subsequent jamabandis reflect the possession of the plaintiff. This apart, it is wrongly recorded in the order of the appellate court that the land in question belonged to the father of the defendants. In fact, as already noticed, the land is recorded to be in the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and further the fact that nothing has been brought on the record by the defendants to show that they were in possession of the land at any point of time after the year 1975, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving, at least prima facie, that he is in possession of the land in dispute and thus, entitled to the injunction prayed for.
(3.) FOR what has been stated above, revision No. 3250 of 1993 is allowed, order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. Land involved in Civil Revision No. 3251 of 1993 is the same as in Civil Revision No. 3250 of 1993. Since the petitioner has been prima facie found to be in possession Civil Revision No. 3251 of 1993 is allowed, orders of the courts below are set aside and application for ad interim injunction is allowed and the defendant -respondent is restrained from dispossessing the petitioner during the pendency of the suit except in due course of law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. It is made clear that anything said herein will not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy raised in the suit or in any proceedings before the revenue authorities. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suits at an early date, preferably within one year after affording two effective opportunities to each of the parties for their evidence.;