( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of I. A. NO. 3655/93 and 5710/93. I. A. 3655/93 is an application under Order 39 Rules 1-2 Civil Procedure Code seeking grant of an ad interim preventive injunction protecting the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. I. A. No. 5710/93 filed by the defendants seeks setting aside of the ex parte ad interim order dated 2. 4. 1993 whereby status quo as on that day with respect to the suit property has been directed to be maintained.

( 2 ) THE suit property consists of land bearing Khasra No. 640/151/2/1 measuring 5 Bighas 15 biswas and No. 205/2/2 measuring I Bigha and 2 biswas, total 6 Bighas and 17 biswas situated in village Rajpur Chawani, near C. C. Colony, Delhi. There is an old Kothi situated on the land. Popularly, the property is knowas Laxami Narain Bagh.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he has been in open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the property for over 50 years. He has sown vegetables like onions, Kakri, lady finger and tomatoes and also laid flower bed ( nursery) in the suit land. He has 17 buffaloes along with a cattle shed over the land. On 30. 3. 93, the defendants threatened the plaintiff and his family members with dispossession. Hence the suit for permanent preventive injunction protecting the plaintiff s possession over the suit property. An application under Order 39 Rules 1-2 Civil Procedure Code has also been filed seeking an ad interim injunction in identical terms.

( 4 ) IN their written statement and reply to the application for temporary injunction the defendants have submitted that they are the owners in possession of the suit property. The defendants have set out their source of title and possession along with the documentary evidence supporting their case in very many details. The suit property is ancestral property of the defendants having been inherited by them from their father late Dewan Anand Kumar. A part of the land was proposed to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying down a road. An agreement was entered into between the Government through the President of India and late father of the defendants whereupon a road was carved out through the land trifurcating the land into three pieces as per the plan filed. Road having been laid, the remaining part of the land with super structures thereon has continued in ownership and possession of the defendants. The plaintiff has never been recorded in possession of the land. Khasras Girdwari have all throughout recorded the defendants as owners in possession of the land. It is only in 1980 when an attempt was made by the plaintiff and his son 0m Parkash to have themselves recorded in possession of the land in khasra Girdwari, wherein they could just succeed but on steps being taken by the defendant, the attempt of the plaintiff failed and the khasra entry was corrected. The defendant have filed all the relevant documents in support of their case set out in the written statement.

( 5 ) PLACING reliance on several decisions the learned counsel, for the plaintiff has tried to propound a proposition that the possession even if without title deserves to be protected if peaceful and settled. There cannot be a quarrel with the proposition sought to be propounded inasmuch as it is well settled that law respects possession and if one be in peaceful and settled possession of property then even the real owner may not take the law in its own hands and dispossess the person in possession.

( 6 ) BEFORE scrutinising the facts and material available on record so as to form an opinion on the entitlement of the plaintiff to the grant of injunction as is prayed for, the decisions Relied on on by the counsel for the plaintiff may be noticed. In Midnapurco. Vs. Naresh Narain, 1924 P. C. 144, their Lordships have held :-

"in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession: they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court. Following the