- (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 10-3-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad dismissing the appeal of the present petitioners against an order dated 4-8-2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Palwal allowing an application for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the present petitioners from interfering in their possession of agriculture land comprising in Khewat No. 182/158, Khatoni No. 241/222, Rect. No. 3, Killa No. 19(3-17) 20(7-7), 21 min (0-13), Rect. No. 11, Killa, No. 1/1 min Estate (2-0) 10/2 min Estate (2-0), 11/2(1- 4), Khewat No. 74 min/5-7, Khatoni No. 87/ 74, Rect. No. 60 Killa No. 12(7-13). The right to hold the property was on the strength of a lease deed for a period of 99 years duly registered with the competent registering authority. The trial Court vide its order dated 4-8-2006 allowed the interim application. The appeal preferred against the said order before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-3-2007. The appellate Court vide the impugned order returned a finding that there is a registered lease deed dated 9-8-82 for a period of 99 years which is to expire in the year 2081 and prima facie the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. It is on the strength of this document that the appellate Court concurred with the findings and the conclusion of the trial Court for the grant of injunction.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there is no revenue record to demonstrate the actual physical possession of the lessee over the suit land and even mutation earlier entered on the strength of the lease deed has been cancelled. It is accordingly stated that the trial Court as also the appellate Court have returned the findings which is contrary to law. I am not impressed by this argument for the Simple reason that the trial Court was required to consider whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs or not. There is a registered document on record i.e. a lease deed. The document being registered carries evidentiary value, unless it is rebutted during the course of trial. Prirna faciea,triable issue has been raised. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court and that of the appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity.;