VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Courts below allowing the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the plaintiff had purchased the land in dispute in open auction and the ownership and possession of the plaintiff-respondent is recorded in the revenue record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the purchase was made on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent as he had contributed towards the auction price. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Courts below by placing reliance on the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. No fault can be found with this finding.
(3.) FACED with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent had entered into a compromise with him under which he had agreed to transfer two killas of land in his favour. He also contended that electric meter has been installed in the land which is in his name and therefore, his possession over two killas of land is proved. I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel as the learned Courts below have rightly held that it is yet to be seen whether under the compromise any land was transferred to the petitioner herein.;