Possession of the shed by the petitioner influenced the court's decision to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - Heard. The bone of contentions in the present lis is an old shed allegedly constructed by the petitioner herein (plaintiff in the trial Court) about 40 years ago, over the land bearing Khasra No.1116/1, measuring 0-01-21 hectares, situated in Mohal Dhial, Mauza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. He allegedly obtained a contract of Jhol (liquor) and the shed allegedly was constructed by him to set-up the unit of Jhol over the land in question. The suit land ultimately was purchased by one Shanti Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents-defendants. In the demarcation of the land amongst the co-sharers the same fell into the share of said Shanti Lal. While the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the possession of the suit land could not be delivered to said Shri Shanti Lal on account of the same, by way of construction of shed, was in his possession, the respondentsdefendants claim that the possession thereof was also delivered to them by the revenue staff along with others.

2. Both Courts below, on consideration of the given facts and circumstances and also the documents available on record has concluded that neither there exists any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff nor the balance of convenience lies in his favour. Also that the comparative mischief in the event of the interim injunction as sought is granted would be greater to the respondents-defendants as compared to the petitioner-plaintiff. The application for interim injunction filed along with the suit as such has been dismissed by learned trial Court. Learned lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by learned trial Court.

3. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and going through the records, admittedly, the suit land in partition fell into the share of Shanti Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondentsdefendants, however, the material available on record at this stage is not sufficient even to form an opinion, prima facie that the possession of the suit land over which the shed is in existence was delivered to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants by the revenue agencies after partition of the suit land.

4. On the other hand, the record amply demonstrates that the petitioner-plaintiff is in possession of the shed in question, reference in this behalf can be made to Rapat Rojnamcha No. 464, dated 15.6.2009. The same was entered in Rapat Rojnamcha concerned, on the receipt of the warrant of possession. The reading of this document reveals that except for the land, over which the shed has been constructed, which, as per this document was found to be in possession of the petitioner-plaintiff, the possession of the remaining land was given to the respondents-defendants. As regards the land beneath the shed, the petitionerplaintiff had given an undertaking to settle the issue qua possession thereof on demarcation of the land.

5. Anyhow, the fact remains that the shed in question was found at the time of delivery of possession of the land to the respondentsdefendants consequent upon the partition thereof amongst the co-sharers, in possession of the petitioner-plaintiff. The entry in Rapat Rojnamcha No.431, dated 21.5.2015 reveals that though the possession of the land bearing khasra No.1115/3 and 1116/1 (the land in dispute) total measuring 0-03-20 hectares, had to be delivered to the respondents-defendants, however, the possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 1115/3 measuring 0-01-99 hectares, could only be delivered to them. Meaning thereby that the disputed land underneath the shed is still in the possession of the petitionerplaintiff. True it is that he has no title in the suit land and his status qua the suit land is that of a tress-passer. However, as per the law well settled at this stage, a tress-passer cannot also be dispossessed by way of force and rather in in accordance with due process of law. The respondents-defendants, therefore