The satisfaction of the court regarding prima facie case is crucial for the grant of temporary injunction, and the court may exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. The order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Munsiff, Jammu, (for brevity ‘trial court’) whereby application of the plaintiff/petitioner herein seeking an order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected and order dated 02.05.2018 (for brevity ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (for brevity ‘Appellate Court’) in appeal against the said order upholding the order of the trial court and rejecting the appeal, have been assailed in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and seeking quashing of the said orders and allowing his application filed by him under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, for temporary injunction filed by him alongwith his suit seeking decree for declaration as well as injunction.

2. Briefly stating, the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court, in which he has sought following reliefs:

(a) Decree of declaration declaring the sale deed dated 16.05.2001 executed by defendants no. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant no. 5 for land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas; sale deed dated 31.01.2004 executed by defendants no. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant no. 5 for land measuring 9 marlas in Khasra No. 155 Khata No. 740 Khewat No. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu and sale deed dated 31.12.2005 executed by Anil favour of Defendant no. 6 for land measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas comprised in khasra no. 155 Khata no. 740 khewat no. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu as null and void in as far as these effect the rights of the plaintiff over the land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas falling under Khasra No. 155 Khata no. 740 Khewat No. 65 in possession of the plaintiff.

(b) Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

3. The plaintiff/petitioner has sought the aforesaid reliefs precisely on the following pleas/grounds:

(a) That he is the owner in possession of land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas falling under Khasra No. 155 Khata no. 740 khewat no. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu. He had been in possession even prior to year 1971 and is in continuous possession. Besides this land, some other land is also in his cultivating possession. He had constructed his house in some portion of land under khasra no. 155 in addition to the abovementioned land.

(b) That defendants no. 1 to 3 have executed two sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 5 through their attorney holder, defendant no. 4, in respect of land falling under khasra no. 155 khata no. 740 khewat no. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu. One sale deed was executed on 16.05.2001 for land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas and second sale deed was executed on 31.01.2004 for the land measuring 9 marlas.

(c) That the defendants no. 1 to 3 had never been in physical possession of the land on spot and had no capacity under law to execute the abovementioned sale deeds. They have illegally and with ill intentions executed sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 5, who further executed sale deed in favour of defendant no. 6 dated 31.12.2005 in the same manner, whereas the fact is that defendant no. 5 was also not in physical possession of the aforesaid land.

(d) That the defendant no. 6 is also not in possession of any land in the above said khasras numbers and is now trying to encroach upon the land of the plaintiff.

(e) That the sale deeds executed by defendants no. 1 to 3 are illegal as the same have been executed by them without the knowledge and written consent of their sisters, namely, Amarjeet Kour and Simranjeet Kour, who are co-sharers in the said land.

(f) The plaintiff’s possession over the suit land is authenticated by the report dated 09.10.2013 of the Patwari who has reported that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land.

4. The respondents-defendants, while contesting the suit and refuting the grou