ORDER :

Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), by way of instant petition, has assailed order dated 25.11.2020, passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3-D/XIV2020, whereby order dated 23.11.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, Distt. Kangra in CMA No. 598 of 2019 has been set aside and an order directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit property has been passed.

2. Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this petition are that on 19.11.2019 respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) instituted Civil Suit No. 325 of 2019 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur against the defendant and her husband (now deceased) seeking following relief-

"It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference in the peaceful possession, taking possession forcibly, changing the existing nature and character by way of raising any kind of new constructions, making any addition, alteration, modification, variation in the existing structure or in any other manner, changing the revenue entries by way of sale etc. of the existing building situated over the land measuring 00-01-00 sq mt, comprised in khewat no. 348 khatauni no. 568 bearing khasra no. 1545 as per Jamabandi for the year 2000-01 situated in Mohal Badaghwar, Sub Thesil Bhawarna, Distt. Kangra, HP may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and the against the defendants with costs of litigation. In the alternative decree for possession through removal of superstructure in case the defendants succeed in causing any sort of interference or in taking forceful possession or in raising any kind of new construction over any part of the suit land during the pendency of the suit may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs of litigation.”

3. In the plaint, it is averred that father of the plaintiff (Ishwar Dass) and father-in-law of the defendant (Prem Chand) were brothers. Ishwar Dass had purchased suit property in 1965-66 in an auction and since then had enjoyed its possession. Ishwar Dass was dependent on Prem Chand for management of his local affairs, therefore, Prem Chand had represented him in the auction. The entire consideration amount was paid by Ishwar Dass. The sale deed, however, was wrongly and fraudulently got executed by Prem Chand in his name. Prem Chand transferred the suit property in the name of his son (late husband of defendant), who further sold the suit property to defendant for sale consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/-. Interference in possession of plaintiff over suit property by defendant was pleaded as the cause of action for filing the suit. Application for interim injunction also accompanied the plaint. Defendant is contesting the suit of the plaintiff by asserting ownership and possession of the suit property earlier with Prem Chand and thereafter with her husband (now deceased) and herself.

4. Learned Trial Court declined interim relief to the plaintiff, however, the Appellate Court passed the status quo order, as noticed above. Both the Courts, however, concurred to the effect that the defendant and her predecessor-in-interest were continuously and consistently recorded as owners in possession of suit property in revenue records. The Appellate Court additionally noticed that the electricity meter on the suit property was installed in the name of mother of plaintiff and the verification report in this respect was witnessed by husband of the defendant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

6. Ishwar Dass died in the year 1995 and his wife Basant Kumari Sood died in the year 2019. No dispute in respect of suit property was reported till the life time of Ishwar Dass and Basant Kumari Sood. The title of the