1983 Supreme(MP) 626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. P. SINGH, J.
Krishnarao - Appellant
Versus
Kesharsingh - Respondent
C. R. No. 306 of 1982 (I)
Decided on : 15-07-1983

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 39, R. 1 and 2 – plaintiff in possession by virtue of an invalid lease – entitled to maintain possession till evicted by competent Court – granting of injunction is justified.

       (2) Lease – of 99 years by Pujari of Government temple – invalid – will be deemed yearly lease.

        Short Note

       1. Both the Courts have found that on the basis of revenue entries that possession was with Kesharsingh, the plaintiff. The only argument addressed by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the Courts below have not found any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.

       2. Held : It is true that there is no such finding by the Courts below, but there does appear to be a prima facie case for grant of an injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a lease executed by Krishnarao, applicant No.1, in favour of the plaintiff's father on 25 – 6 – 1962. Although there is a denial of this lease in the written – statement, but there is no specific denial of signatures on this document in the affidavit filed by Knshnarao. Prima facie the document establishes that there was a lease executed in favour of the plaintiff's father. Krishnarao is Pujari of the Government temple, to which the lands belong. Even assuming that the Pujari was not competent to grant a lease of 99 years, the fact prima facie remains that the plaintiff's father was inducted as a lessee and after the plaintiff's father the plaintiff continues in possession as a lessee. The Government has also been joined as defendant in the suit, but it has not filed any revision to challenge the temporary injunction. Krishnarao's case is that he has granted another lease, in favour of Narpatsingh, who is applicant No.2 in this revision. This will show that Krishnarao, even if not competent to grant a lease of 99 years, was in fact granting lease from time to time. Assuming the lease of 99 years to be invalid, the plaintiff would prima facie be a lessee from year to year and can be evicted only by taking proper proceedings against him. I have been informed by the Government Advocate that proceedings under section 248 of the M. P. I and Revenue Code are pending against the plaintiff. Until the plaintiff is evicted by a competent Court, whether in the proceedings that are pending against him or in any other proceedings that may be instituted against him, he has a prima facie case to maintain his possession, The grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff was, therefore justified. The temporary injunction will not prevent the State in continuing the proceedings under S. 248 and any finding given in the proceedings for grant of temporary injunction will not be binding on revenue Courts.

       Revision dismissed.