( 1 ) THIS civil revision is directed against the order passed by Mr. R. L. Chugh, Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi on 17/12/1984.

( 2 ) THE facts are briefly set out. The respondent, Pt. Pehiad and his brother, Mr. Narain Singh were co-bhumidars of 22 bighas 8 biswas of land in village Holambi Khurd. On 15/9/1984, Mr. Narain Singh is alleged to have sold his half share consisting of 11 bighas 4 biswas to Mr. Balbir Singh, the petitioner, by a registered sale deed. The sale-deed indicates that the consideration of Rs. 20,000. 00 "had been received previously from the vendee, and nothing remain due out of the sale price". In the sale deed the khasra numbers of the entire land of 22 bighas 8 biswas are mentioned. Though no specific khasra numbers are mentioned, it is asserted therein that Mr. Narain Singh is "the exclusive owner and in absolute possession and Bhumidar of Agricultural land measuring 11 bighas 4 biswas out of land measuring 22 bighas 8 biswas" and "possession of the above-mentioned land under sale has been given to the Vendee who had occupied the same. " It is also asserted in the said sale-deed that the vendor has "complied with Section 33 of the Land Reforms Act Delhi, and hold DO other area in Delhi state. "

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on 14/11/1984, Mr. Balbir Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against Pt. Pehiad restraining him from interfering with his possession in specific khasra numbers of the land, mentioning that it was Mr. Narain Singh s mutually partitioned share which had been sold to him and he had taken peaceful possession of it on the date of sale. However, Mr. Narain Singh was not made a party to the suit. An application for an interim injunction was also filed, along with the plaint.

( 4 ) ON 23/11/1984, Pt. Pehiad filed his written statement. On the same day, the petitioner filed an affidavit in court, allegedly sworn by Mr. Narain Singh, indicating that he had sold his share of land as per the numbers mentioned in the plaint and put the petitioner in possession.

( 5 ) MR. G. P. Mittal, Sub-Judge II Class, after hearing counsel, rejected the prayer for interim injunction on 23/11/1984. In his order he noticed that the latest khasra girdwari, placed on record by Pt. Pehiad, dated 19/11/1984, which pertained to 5/10/1984, showed Mr. Narain Singh and Pt. Pehiad in joint possession, even after the date of alleged sale. He opined that the alleged sale is prima facie void under the provisions of Section 45 of Delhi Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), as admittedly the entire land is less than 8 standard acres. He held that the averment in paragraph 12 of the plaint, pertaining to the land having been mutually partitioned between Pt. Pehiad and Mr. Narain Singh, could not be accepted, as this was not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 57 of the Act. He observed that he was "unable to agree that simply because the sale-deed had been effected in favour of the plaintiff he should be deemed to be in possession. " Consequently, he was of the view that no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner had been made out and he dismissed the application.

( 6 ) ON 25/11/1984, the petitioner filed an appeal against this order. On 28/11/1984, the appellate court granted him ex-parte interim injunction. However, on 17/12/1984, the said appeal was heard and dismissed and the interim order vacated Mr. R. L. Chugh, Senior Sub-Judge, who heard the matter, was of the view, that "the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the injunction,"at this stage. According to him "a mere suit for an injunction simpliciter is not maintainable at the instance" of the petitioner. He opined that the petitioner had "to necessarily seek a declaration about his bhumidari rights in the land in dispute and then ask for an injunction. " He observed that the concept of ownership had been abolished in view of the authority of the Supreme Court in Haiti v. Sunder Singh, A. I. R. 1971 SC 2320.

( 7 ) HE op