Tarlok Singh Chauhan J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla on 1.12.2014, whereby he affirmed the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 6, Shimla on 18.1.2014, thereby, declining the prayer for injunction as sought for by the petitioners.

The facts leading to the filing of this petition may be stated thus:-

2. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction and along with the same also filed a separate application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the respondents/defendants from transferring, encumbering, damaging or dispossessing the petitioners from the land comprised in Khewat No. 81/77, Khatauni No. 159 old, Khasra No. 1271/38, new Khasra No. 329, measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas, 1272/38, measuring 11 bighas 3 biswas and 1278/44, measuring 17 biswas, new Khasra No 329, situated at Mauza Bajhair (Sheel), Pargana Dhamehr, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. (herein after referred to as the suit land). It was averred that the suit land was owned by the erstwhile ruler of Dhami Estate Raja Dalip Singh, son of Shri Hira Singh. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Sh. Anant Ram was a priest, performing pooja of Deo Kurgan and late Raja Dalip Singh out of gratitude and in lieu of the services of pooja gave the suit land to Sh. Anant Ram in the year 1952. Sh. Anant Ram was put in possession thereof and was assured by late Raja that the entry qua the same would be incorporated in the revenue records. It was averred that the possession of predecessor-in-interest and thereafter the petitioners is continuing since 1952 without any interference, let or hindrance. It was further averred that in the year 1995 Sh. Anant Ram came to know that the suit land under the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” in short) has been declared surplus by defendant No. 1 after litigating with the proforma defendants. It was also averred that the petitioners were not aware of this litigation and came to know about the same on filing of the application for correction of the revenue entries by invoking Sections 37 and 38 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which was registered as case No. 21/95-96. The successors of late Raja Dalip Singh have admitted the oral transfer by their predecessor-in-interest in favour of Sh. Anant Ram and have also admitted the possession of Sh.Anant Ram over the suit land since 1952, but despite this admission, the case is still pending. The petitioners further alleged that in the month of December, 2013, respondents No. 2 to 6 started interfering in the suit land and uprooted the trees planted by their predecessor-in-interest and despite repeated requests were still interfering in the suit land, constraining the petitioners to file the instant suit.

3. The respondents contested the application by filing reply, wherein it was stated that the petitioners were neither the owners nor were in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that the suit land had been vested in the State of H.P. as per the provisions of the Ceiling Act on 19.5.1990 and the same was supported by the revenue record.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and material placed on record dismissed the application and appeal preferred against this order also came to be dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the orders passed concurrently by the learned Courts below, the petitioners have filed the instant petition on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are totally perverse and therefore, deserve to be set aside.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

5. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is as to what is precisely the scope o