A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must prove his possession of the suit land.

B.Rai, J.

1. This appeal arises out of suit for permanent injunction filed by Darshan Singh which was dismissed by Sub Judge, First Class vide his judgment and decree dated 28.4.1997. Feeling aggrieved Darshan Singh preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 11.10.1979. Still Darshan Singh, plaintiff being not satisfied has come up in second appeal.

2. Brief facts are that the suit land was owned by the Provincial Government. It was alleged by Darshan Singh that he cultivated the suit land from Rabi 1978, on payment of two times of the land revenue to the Central Government. According to him the defendant had no concern with the suit land; however, they tried to dispossess him forcibly on 10.4.1978 but they were not permitted to do so, Hence, he filed the suit.

3. Nachattar Singh, defendant No. 4 was proceeded against ex-parte by the trial Court. However, other defendants filed the written statement raising objections that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct and the suit in the present form was not maintainable. On merits they pleaded that the entire land of village Sheikh Majra was acquired by the Government for Pong Dam but later on the land was released to the owners with payment of eight time of the land revenue. Consequently, Harnam Singh, the owner of the suit land, possession was delivered to him. Veero is attorney of Harnam Singh. She had given that land on lease to Anokh Singh, defendant No. 2 who is in actual possession of the same at the spot. Prior to that Anokh Singh was in possession of the suit land and to that effect entries exist in the revenue record, and still he is recorded to be in possession of the suit land. Pleadings gave rise to the following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as a tenant? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP.

4. The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, adduced by the parties, on issue No. 1, returned the finding that the Patwari had wrongly show the possession of Darshan Singh over the suit land in Rabi, 1978. Actually he did not hold possession and, therefore, finding was returned against the plaintiff. The defendants failed on issue No. 2 for want of evidence. In view of finding on issue No. 1, it was held that plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction prayed for. Consequently, the suit of Darshan Singh was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

5. The learned District Judge in appeal preferred by Darshan Singh affirmed the findings of the trial Court on all the issues and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and pursuing the record, I find no merit in the appeal.

7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff in order to seek the relief of permanent injunction, has to prove his possession only and is entitled to protect the same by seeking relief of permanent injunction against whosoever attempts to forcibly dispossess or interfere with his possession. In support of his argument, he referred to Khasra Girdawri for the Rabi Crop 1978 and pointed out that in Rabi 1978, Darshan Singh, plaintiff is recorded to be in possession of the suit land and the defendant-respondents have no legal right or to take possession forcibly. It was stressed that even if the defendants have some right or title, the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. It was submitted that both the Courts have taken erroneous view of the evidence led by the appellant and the evidence has not been properly appreciated. According to him, erroneous appreciation of the evidence has led both the Courts to hold that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land which in view of the documentary evidence is a pe