R.L. Anand, J. - Whether long possession per se, if it is without valid title or right to occupy the land/property, gives a right to the occupier to retain such possession against a rightful/lawful owner is going to be adjudicated in the present revision as this aspect of the case is being confronted by the subordinate courts in different litigations and in the High Court also many litigations on this aspect of the law are being entertained.

2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute but still it is necessary on my part to reproduce some of the facts to appreciate the above proposition, which I have propounded in the earlier portion of this judgment.

3. The present revision has been filed by Jit Singh and it has been directed against the judgment dated 12.3.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who set aside the order dated 21.2.1998, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, who allowed the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, and ordered that till the disposal of the suit, the possession of the petitioner should not be disturbed by the defendants.

4. Jit Singh, petitioner, filed a suit for injunction alleging that he is in possession of the suit land bearing rectangle No. 17 khasra No. 15/2 (5-2), for the last more than 35/40 years since the time of consolidation. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and they have threatened to take forcible possession. On these broad allegations, the plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction praying that he may not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law and along with the plaint, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, praying that during the pendency of the suit, his possession should not be disturbed.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants. They denied each and every allegation. The case set up by the defendants was that they are the owners of the suit land. The entries in the revenue record showing the possession of the plaintiff are factually and legally wrong and the plaintiff has manipulated these entries in connivance with the revenue officials. They stated that since they are the rightful owners of the land, therefore, no injunction can be issued against them. The defendants also opposed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, on these very grounds.

6. The parties placed some documents before the trial Court and the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), vide order dated 21.2.1998, allowed the application for the reasons given in paras 6 and 7 of the order, which read as under :-

"6. The copy of the jamabandi of the year 1991-92 placed on the record shows that Titar Singh along with respondents/defendants are owners in possession of the suit land and in this jamabandi of the year 1991-92 present applicant/plaintiff Jit Singh son of Tota Singh has been shown to be in possession of the disputed khasra No. 117//15/2(5-2) as Gair Marusi. Similarly, the khasra girdawari of the years 1992-92 to 1996-97 also shows the present applicant/plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi. Thus, the revenue record establishes the fact on the record that the applicant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since 1991-92. No counter revenue record has been placed on the record by the respondents/defendants to prove that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the suit land. It was simply contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that no injunction order can be passed against the lawful owner as the respondents/defendants being lawful owner of the suit land and as such the present application may be dismissed. To support its contention learned counsel for the respondents/defendants also cited the authority of Honble Supreme Court of India in case Sri Hanumanthappa v. Sri Muninarayanappa, reported in 1997(1) Civil Court Cases 90 in which it was held as