The judgment emphasizes the presumption of continuity of possession in favor of tenants under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and the requirement for evidence of abandonment or eviction to rebut this presumption.

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in the trial Court; namely, Som Nath, Des Raj, Gurbachan Singh, Hari Chand and Mohinder Pal, have filed the present civil revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 8.4.1999, passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Jagadhari, who affirmed the order dated 30.6.1998, passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagadhari, who allowed the application of the plaintiffs - Lachhman Singh, Ranjore Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Rajroop Singh, now respondents 1 to 4, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., and granted temporary injunction in their favour restraining defendants 1 to 7, i.e. the present petitioners; Mahipal and Shanti Devi, from interfering into the possession or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property, except in due course of law, till the decision of the suit.

2. Some facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :-

3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the entries in the column of cultivation in the name of defendants 6 and 7; namely, Mahipal and Shanti Devi, in respect of the agricultural land measuring 11 Kanals 13 marlas bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 3/3, Khasra No. 3 Rectangle No. 48, Khasra Nos. 19/2, 22, Rectangle No. 55 Khasra No. 2/1/2, situated in the revenue restate of Village Chhapar Mansurpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, are wrong, illegal, null and void and liable to be corrected in the names of the plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 12; namely, Om Pal Singh, Dheer Singh, Rajbir Singh, Parveen Kumar and Smt. Kamla, as they are the tenants in the land in dispute. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of the land measuring 11 kanals 13 marlas along with all rights of Jumla Hakook, etc., such as tube-well in working condition, on the basis of two registered sale deeds dated 1.6.1998 registered on 2.6.1998 on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 7 that they be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the said land. The plaintiffs further prayed that defendants 1 to 7 be restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs and that of defendants 8 to 12.

4. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that earlier one Fateh Singh was the owner of the suit land and plaintiff No. 1 Lachhman Singh along with others was tenant under him. Later on, the ownership of the land was changed in the names of defendants 6 and 7, but the plaintiff No. 1 along with the predecessors of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 8 to 12 remained tenants over the suit land and they have not been ejected from the suit land. Defendants 6 and 7 sold away the suit land in favour of defendants 1 to 5 secretly and without notice to the plaintiffs. On the basis of the sale deeds, defendants 1 to 7 are taking forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs on which they have got no legal right, title or authority. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs prayed that during the pendency of the suit, they should not be ejected forcibly by defendants 1 to 7.

5. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, was also filed. The application was contested on the plea that defendants 1 to 5 have become the owners of the suit land and they have purchased this land from defendants 6 and 7 and they are in possession of the same. Neither the plaintiffs nor defendants 8 to 12 were the tenants. They were not in possession of the suit land at any time, therefore, they had no right, title or interest or concern with the land in question and they are not entitled to any injunction.

6. Parties placed on record documents before the trial Court and for the reasons given in paras 4 to 8 of the order dated 30.6.1998, which are quoted hereinbelow, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was allowed and directions were given to defe