- (1.) THIS revision has been filed by the defendants against the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur, dated 27th August, 1957 reversing the interlocutory order of the S. D. O Kotputli dated 1. 5. 1957 whereby he had rejected the request of the opposite party for grant of a temporary injunction.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. The opposite party brought a suit against the applicant in the trial court for ejectment on the ground of commission of acts detrimental to the holding and grant of a permanent injunction. It was alleged in the plaint that the applicants had started construc-tions in the land without sanction of the opposite party; that they were digging pits and that they were about to make building of a pucca nature. It was alleged that these actions amounted to detrimental acts. The suit was contested on the ground that the defendants were the Khatedar tenants of the land in dispute; that they were entitled under the law to carry out works of improvement including houses for residential purposes and cattle shed and that they were not intending to do any detrimental act. The trial court had initially granted an interim stay order but on objections being raised by the applicants the same was vacated on 1. 5. 1957. The plaintiff went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who allowed the same and hence this revision. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed in his judgment that as the land was under a mortgage it is a controversial point as to whether tenancy rights can accrue in favour of the defendants or not, and on this ground it was essential that interim stay granted by the trial court should continue. The learned Additional Commissioner has evidently failed to appreciate the point involved in a right persi ective. It has been pointed out by the Board in a number of cases that the discretion of the trial court in such matters ought not be interfered with lightly. The law on the point is contained in sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. A temporary injunction may be issued where the suit property is in danger of being wasted damaged or alienated or where any party intends to remove or dispose of the same in order to defeat the ends of justice. No such allegations were ever made in this case at any stage The only thing alleged by the plaintiff was that the defendants were digging pits and were about to set up constructions of a permanent nature. The defendants pleaded that they intended to dig a well and construct a residential house an 1 a cow shed. There is nothing on the record to suggest that this position taken up by the defendants was ever falsified by the plaintiffs. In facts during the course of the argument before us also it was not suggested that the defendants intended to construct anything other than that they had given out in their written statement. It is also a fact that Khatedari parcha stands in the name of the defendants. We would not like to express any opinion as to whether this Khatedari parcha is Valid or not. But unless a contrary is established it can prima facie be presumed that it is valid. Thus the position would be that the defendants prima facie have a right granted by law to carry out improvement. The effect of the decision of the learned Additional Commissioner would simply be to deprive them of a right expressly given to the applicant by the law. The revision is, therefore, allowed, the order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, is set aside and that of the trial court dated 5. 1. 1957 shall stand restored. .;