IMPORTANT POINT
Continuous possession must be proven to obtain an injunction; mere revenue entries are not conclusive if rebutted by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Ritu Tagore, J.) :

Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings returned against him, appellant-plaintiff has preferred this regular second appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, affirming and upholding the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jhajjar.

2. For easy reference, parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original status in the suit.

3. Appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from illegally interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, bearing khewat No.4832, khatoni No. 5656, khasra No. 510 min, total measuring 4 kanal 19 marlas of gairmumkin mosque Jahanara bagh District and Tehsil Jhajjar, as detailed in the plaint and his forcible dispossession from the same. Further, plaintiff requests that the defendants be injuncted from claiming ownership of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he, along with Bhagat Singh son of Chandgiram and Jhabbar son of Dulichand had been lessee on the suit property since 01.08.1970 @ Rs.48/- per month as rent. On the suit property, the plaintiff had raised a boundary wall, installed a gate on the eastern side and had also kept about 40,000 bricks on the suit property. It is asserted that officers of defendant No.1 and SHO Jhajjar, on the intervening night of 06/07.07.2006, threw the bricks belonging to plaintiff on the road and caused a monetary loss of Rs.20,000/- to him. The plaintiff claims that defendants have no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and disturb the same forcibly except than in due course of law. On the above material assertions, plaintiff prayed for grant of decree of prohibitory injunction and damages of Rs.20,000/- for the loss sustained by him regarding the bricks.

4. Defendants, on put to notice by the learned trial Court, appeared. Defendant No.2 in the written statement pleaded that Rameshwar (the plaintiff), Mangat and Jhabbar were inducted as lessee on the suit property for a period of 11 months vide lease deed 01.08.1970 @ Rs.48/- per month as rent. The plaintiff deposited Rs.400/- only to defendant No.2-Punjab Wakf Board against total amount of rent of Rs.520/- After the expiry of 11 months, the tenancy was automatically terminated. The alleged assertions of constructing a boundary wall, installing gate on the suit property, and throwing bricks of the plaintiff were denied. The possession of Municipal Committee, Jhajjar (defendant No. 3), as lessee under the defendant No 2 was claimed over the suit property since 1977. The existence of a library, park and playground for the children were asserted on the suit’s property by denying the possession of the plaintiff. On the above averments, the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit was challenged. Additionally, the suit of the plaintiff was claimed to be time barred and bad for non-issuance of legal notice to the defendant No 2-Wakf Board, prior to the filing of suit.

5. Defendant No.3-the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar took similar pleas as taken by the defendant No. 2 to oppose the case of plaintiff. The defendant No.3 pleaded that after the expiry of 11 months of lease period, the possession of the suit property was taken by the owner. In 1977, the defendant No.3-the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar took possession of the suit property and entries of khasra girdwari, were corrected in the name of the defendant No.3-the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar, after verifying the possession of the defendant No.3 on Committee, Jhajjar, raised a park for the children, in the name of Shriram Sharma Park. On these averments, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.

6. Since the parties were at variance, learned trial Court framed the following issues

“No.1: Whether the plaintiff is having lawful possession over a parcel of the la