Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 546 (PNJ)

Ramesh v. Nathi

2002-05-16

M.M.KUMAR

body2002
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The defendant-petitioners invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) have challenged the order dated 20.4.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissing their appeal against the order dated 8.10.20.01. The Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Karnal vide his order dated 8.10.2001 has allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondent filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code granting ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 2. For the effective adjudication of the controversy raised in the present revision petition, it is necessary to notice the facts in brief. The plaintiff-respondent Nathi son of Tej Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioners with a prayer that the plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession of agricultural land fully described in the plaint alleging that he purchased the land from Darshan Lal and Jai Pal sons of Nano Devi and also Bimla, Parmeshwari daughters of Smt. Santo daughter of Sada Rant. It was further alleged that the land has also been purchased from Attar Singh son of Ratti Ram, Ishwar Devi daughter of Ratti Ram etc, etc, vide registered sale deed No. 8818/1 dated 15.3.2001. It was further claimed that the sale deed was executed by Raj Kumar son of Parmeshwari daughter of Santo being general power of attorney. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed it is claimed that he is in cultivating possession of the land and the defendant-petitioners have no concern with the suit property. Alongwith the plant, an application under Order XXXIX Rues 1 and 2 of the Code seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the suit land was also filed. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioners, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent asserting that he is owner in possession of the suit land has been controverted and it is claimed that in fact the defendant-petitioners are owners in possession of the suit property. The defendant-petitioners have also explained the inheritance by making various other averments. In the end, it was prayed that the application of the plaintiff-respondent filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code be dismissed. 4. The defendant-petitioners have also explained the inheritance by making various other averments. In the end, it was prayed that the application of the plaintiff-respondent filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code be dismissed. 4. Both the Courts below placed heavy reliance on the sale deed and general power of attorney dated 15.3.2001 and 11.9.2000 receptively. Further reliance was placed on the sanctioning of mutation in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and photostat copy of the jamabandi. On the basis of overwhelming documentary evidence in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the Civil Judge allowed the application for an interim injunction and the appeal filed before the Additional District Judge has been dismissed. The view of the Additional District Judge can be ascertained from paragraphs 8, 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under:- "8. In view of the above backdrop after scanning the impugned order as well as documentary evidence I find no ground to deviate from the conclusion arrived at by the lower court. Having relied upon the revenue record and the sale deed vide which the plaintiff had purchased this land from Darshan Lal etc., the lower court rightly concluded that the plaintiff was in possession of this land and, therefore, he was entitled to the relief of interim injunction. 9....... 10...... A bare perusal of the pedigree table placed on the file would reveal that Shrimati Ganga Devi widow of Sh. Sahtu son of Sh. Sada Ram died issueless. The revenue record reflects her to be, as admitted by both the parties, the absolute owner in possession of this property. After she died, this property is shown to have been inherited by Ratti Ram, Darshan Lal and Jaipal sons, Shrimati Nano Devi, Parmeshwari and Bimla daughters of Santo to the extent of one half share and Nanu Ram and Smt. Sarbati to the extent of remaining one half share vide mutation No. 1347 sanctioned on 3.10.1972. According to this mutation Smt. Ganga Devi died in January, 1970. The plaintiff is shown to have purchased this land vide sale deed dated 15.3.2001 from Jaipal. Smt. Nano Devi, Bimla, Parmeshwari, Santro, Amar Singh, Sh. Darshan Lal and Smt. Chinto wife of Nanu. These venders are none else but the legal heirs or the persons who had inherited the estate of Smt. Ganga Devi by virtue of above mutation No. 1347. Smt. Nano Devi, Bimla, Parmeshwari, Santro, Amar Singh, Sh. Darshan Lal and Smt. Chinto wife of Nanu. These venders are none else but the legal heirs or the persons who had inherited the estate of Smt. Ganga Devi by virtue of above mutation No. 1347. Therefore, when as per pedigree table also they were the nearest legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Ganga Devi entitled to inherit this land there is absolutely no aberration in the sale deed executed by these vendors in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is prima facie proved to be the owner in possession of this land having been purchased by him vide above sale deed from lawful owners thereof. 11. On the other hand, defendants No. 5, 7 to 9 have not been able to satisfy me as to in what way they were concerned with this land. Lal Singh, Dhararn Pal sons of Sh. Chhajja i.e, defendants No. 7 and 8 and Phool Singh father of defendant No. 9 had purchased the land measuring 14 kanals 10 Marias from the above said vendors vide sale deed No. 55 of 1981 as reflected in mutation No. 1465 sanctioned in view of the above sale deed. Besides that Smt. Antu Ram father of defendant No. 5 had also exchanged 8 Kanals 4 marlas of land as per the decree dated 7.11.1985 passed by the Civil Court on the basis of which mutation No. 1524 was sanctioned on 23.9.1986. Thus the defendant No. 5, 7 to 9 and their predecessors had been admitting these vendors to be the lawful owners in possession of this land throughout. At this stage it does not lie in their mouth to agitate that the vendors were not entitled to inherit the estate of Smt. Ganga Devi, Had these defendants been entitled to inherit this land after the death of Smt. Ganga Devi they must have risen to the occasion when this land was being mutated in favour of Darshan Lal etc. vide mutation No. 1347 in the year 1972. They kept mum over their rights for about thirty years. At this stage. I do not find any merit in their claim that they being the agnates of Smt. Ganga Devi were entitled to inherit the land in dispute to the exclusion of the vendors reflected in the sale deed dated 15.3.2001 from whom the plaintiff had purchased this land. They kept mum over their rights for about thirty years. At this stage. I do not find any merit in their claim that they being the agnates of Smt. Ganga Devi were entitled to inherit the land in dispute to the exclusion of the vendors reflected in the sale deed dated 15.3.2001 from whom the plaintiff had purchased this land. By no stretch of facts defendants No. 5, 7 to 9 can not be taken to be in any way concerned with this land. 12. On the other hand, the plaintiff has proved himself to be the title holder of this land by virtue of the sale of this land suffered by lawful owner vide sale, deed dated 15.3.2001. To protect his title and possession the plaintiff was entitled to get the defendants injuncted from interfering into his possession of this land. Finding no aberration in the approach of the lower Court, the impugned order deserved to be sustained." 5. Mr. Sailender Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has argued that it is well settled that entries in mutation does not confer any title and as such the plaintiff-respondent would not become owner on the basis of mutation. He has further argued that the suit land belongs to one Smt. Ganga Devi widow of Santu who had died issueless. He has further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove how the suit land has been entered in the record of rights in the names of vendees of the plaintiff-respondent. 6. Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that there is no scope for the defendant-petitioners to invoke revisional jurisdiction once both the Courts have found the title of the plaintiff-respondent as valid one. He has further pointed out that there is over-whelming evidence showing the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit property which cannot now be re-appraised. Therefore, he requests for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the record including the pedigree table prepared by the defendant-petitioners. This arguments had been adequately sustained in paragraph 10 of the judgment by the Additional District Judge. There is no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the Additional District Judge. 7. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the record including the pedigree table prepared by the defendant-petitioners. This arguments had been adequately sustained in paragraph 10 of the judgment by the Additional District Judge. There is no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the Additional District Judge. The other argument that the mutations sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-respondent would not per se establish or confer any title also does not require any serious consideration because apart from mutation, the plaintiff-respondents have placed on record the copy of the sale deed and power of attorney. If the entries of mutation are examined in the light of aforementioned documents, then such an entry could not be brushed aside. Section 44 of the Punjab Law Revenue Act, 1887 provides that presumption of truth is attached to the revenue records. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by both the Courts below by placing reliance on the entries of mutation. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no room to interfere in the discretion exercised by both the Courts below while passing the order on an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code. There is neither any jurisdiction error nor any material irregularity warranting interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code. In the absence of any such ground, the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code cannot be exercised as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of The Managing Director (MI Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and Anr. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balangar, Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1973 76 and Terene Traders v. Ramesh Chander Jamna Parshad, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1492. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.