The court determined that petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction due to lack of proof of possession and the legality of prior sanctioned mutations.

Judgment

Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.

CM-23368-CII-2023

This application is filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for permission to implead LRs of Ram Kishan s/o Shankar (petitioner No.1)

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and legal representatives of Ram Kishan s/o Shankar (petitioner No.1) are ordered to be impleaded through him, subject to just exceptions, if any.

Amended Memo of parties is taken on record.

Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.

CM stands disposed of.

Main case

1. Challenge in this revision petition is for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jind vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) Narwana has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the petition are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that (i) order dated 27.05.2014 sanctioning of “Naksha Be” (ii) “Naksha Be” dated 22.04.2014 (iii) “Naksha Zim” dated 27.06.2014 (iv) order dated 03.07.2014 issuing ‘Sanad Taksim’ (v) ‘Sanad Taksim’ dated 03.07.2014 passed by Assistant Collector Iind Grade, Narwana (Yehsilardar, Narwana) and ‘Kabja Karyawahi’ dated 25.04.2015 (vii) Mutation No.6646 dated 08.04.2013 and subsequent revenue record on the basis of which partition orders passed, are illegal, null and void.

3. That the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that it was pleaded that Sadhu Ram was adopted by Ramji Lal and after adoption, he has severed all his relations with his biological family and remained with adopted parents. But inadvertently, share of Smt. Bhagwani, biological mother, was entered in the name of Sadhu Ram. Thereafter family settlement took place in the year 2001 and then, a release deed No. 370 dated 28.06.2001 was executed while transferring 51 kanals of land in favour of remaining three brothers i.e. Dalipa etc. Later on, civil suit was filed by Sadhu Ram and land was equally partitioned among the co-sharers and equal land of 110 kanal 06/05 marla each was given. All the four brothers were shown owners of 110 kanal 06/05 marla but respondent/defendant got mutated some share in his name vide mutation No.6646 and without informing the petitioners/plaintiffs.

4. The respondent/defendant-filed three applications for partition of land without any service of summons on the petitioners-plaintiffs and got conducted the partition proceedings in collusion with the revenue officials. Kabja karyawahi was conducted on 25.04.2015.

5. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for grant of interim injunction. Appeal against said order was also dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the jamabandi for the year 2011-2012, all the four brothers are shown owners of 110 kanals 06/05 marla land and thereafter partitioned proceedings were conducted in the absence of the petitioners-plaintiffs and the land was ordered to be partitioned. The petitioners were not having any knowledge of the pendency of the said partition proceedings. Summons were not issued but it has been wrongly pleaded that petitioners/plaintiffs were served through Munadi. The prescribed mode of service of summons as mentioned under Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, is not followed.

7. The petitioner is still in possession of the property. The lodging of FIR by the respondent-defendant itself shows that petitioners/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the Court below failed to take the note of the same and has wrongly dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction.

8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. The learned Appellate Court has passed the detailed order. The extract of the said order is as under:-

“13. Facts not disputed and necessary for deciding the present appeal are that one Shankar was having four sons namely Dalipa, Ram Kisha