D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) BABULAL and Shriniwas filed an application Under Section 145, Cr. P.C. in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Churu on October 7, 1969, alleging that the respondents Ki hnaram, Jeetaram and others were illegally trying to interfere with the possession of the applicants over khasra Nos. 602, 604 and 606 (new) corresponding to 'Khasra' No. 207 (old) in village Ghanghoo, measuring 7 big has' 15 biswas', which the applicants claimed to be in their possession on the basis of a registered sale deed dated November 8 1968, executed by Mularam in favour of Mohanlal brother of the applicants. It was alleged that the respondents were trying to take over unlawful possession of the aforesaid land and there was imminent danger of breach of peace. The learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Churu, passed a preliminary order on October 7, 1969, and issued notices to the opposite parties directing them to Me their written statement, affidavits and d cuments. The learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate by his order dated October 9, 1969. attached the land in dispute and appointed the (sic) Tehsldar as the Receiver thereof. On November 4, 1969, the applicants filed two affidavits including one of Jeetaram, response -dent No. 4, in which he stated that he was growing vegetables on the land in dispute for the last eight years on behalf of the villagers of Ghanghoo, but during the previous year he grew vegetables in the disputed land after obtaining the permission of Babulal and Shriniwas applicants. He also stated in that affidavit that 25 days ago, the villagers asked him to grow vegetables in the said land and he did so on their request.
(2.) THE opposite parties submitted their reply on November 5, 1969 and asserted that the land in dispute belongs to the village and Jeetaram respondent was growing vegetables thereon on behalf of the village people and he took water for the cultivation from the public well, which was situated on the adjoining 'khasra' No. 206. They took the stand that Mulram, from whom the applicants claimed to have purchased the land in question by sale deed dated November 8, 1968, was neither a tenant nor was ever in possession of the disputed land and that he had no right to execute the sale -deed in respect of the said land. They further asserted that on a part of 'khasra' No. 207 there was a Government School situated and the remaining portion thereof was in possession of the village people and they got the same cultivated through Jeetaram Mali. The parties filed affidavits and certain documents. Jeetaram filed another affidavit in his (sic) right as opposite party on September 17,1970 in which he asserted that he was in possession of the land in dispute on behalf of the village people and was growing vegetables therein on behalf of the villagers He further stated that Babulal and Mohanlal, applicants, were never in possession of the disputed land. Moolaram the alleged vendor, also filed an affidavit on behalf of the opposite patties, in which he admitted that the land in question was being cultivated on behalf of the village people by Jeetaram and vegetables were grown thereon on behalf of the villagers by drawing water from the public well situated on the neighbouring khasra 'land' The applicants relied upon 'khewat entry Ex. P/2, relating to Smt. Year 2018 to 2021 in which Hukma son of Sedhu has been shown as the (isc)' of the disputed land. On the other hand, the respondents relied upon mutation entry, Ex. D/3, dated October 24, 1964, in which the Gram Panchayat recorded that Hukma son of Sedhu in his statement before the Tehsildar admitted that the land in (sic) was wrongly entered in his 'khatedari', but it was part of the jav' of the well. On this admission of Hukma, the 'khewat' entry in favour of Hukma relating to the'khatedari' of the land in dispute was cancelled. The applicants also relied upon a sale -deed, Ex. P/1, dated November 8, 1968, exe cuted by Moolaram in favour of Mohanlal, brother of the applicants, in respect of the land in dispute. The opposite, parties however, submitted that they have already filed a suit in a proper revenue court for declaration that the said sale -deed executed by Moolaram was null and void, as the land in dispute belonged to the villagers and was in their possession A certified copy of the plaint of that suit has been placed on record and marked as Ex. D/4. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the written statement filed by the opposite parties and the affidavits and documents produced by both the sides, came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was in possession of Jeetaram respondent and declared his possession by the order dated October 12, 1970.
(3.) THE applicants submitted a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, against the aforesaid order, but the same was dismissed by the order dated June 23, 1971. The applicants have now come up in revision before this Court.;