A mere apprehension of dispossession without substantial proof is insufficient to grant an injunction.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The Appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, in Civil Appeal No. 33-D/XIII/2024, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge Court No. 1, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in RBT Civil Suit No. 72/2014, was affirmed. The Appellant before this Court was the Plaintiff before the trial Court. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows.

2. The facts of the case succinctly are that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land, which has been recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi and entered as Abadi Deh in the ownership and possession column. The suit land is joint property and the shares of all shareholders have not been partitioned or ascertained by any competent authority under due process of law. The defendants have allegedly threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and alienate it by way of sale to a third party. Since the land is recorded as Abadi Deh, the ownership and possession of the defendants remain unverified unless determined by a competent authority. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have no right to alienate the suit property without first ascertaining their shares and possession. The cause of action arose in the third week of May 2014, when the defendants allegedly threatened the plaintiff with dispossession and unauthorized sale.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, valuation, and the plaintiff not approaching the Court with clean hands. On merits, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff had purchased a specific portion of the land (6 marlas in Khasra No. 897 and a house measuring 8x6 meters in Khasra No. 898) from one Ram Sawroop Sharma via sale deed dated 21.08.2013. The defendants claimed ownership and possession over their respective shares and argued that they had every right to alienate their portion. They alleged that the plaintiff, being a Revenue Patwari, was misusing his position to presurise them into selling the land to him.

4. The plaintiff filed a replication reiterating the contents of the plaint. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues on 29.06.2015:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for? (OPP)

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? (OPD)

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? (OPD)

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged? (OPD)

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged?

6. Relief.

5. Both parties led evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW5 and produced four other witnesses (PW1 to PW4), while the defendants examined themselves as DW4 and DW5 and presented two additional witnesses (DW2 and DW3). After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove any specific act of dispossession or interference by the defendants. The plaintiff’s witnesses did not establish that the defendants attempted to sell their shares to a non-villager, nor was there any concrete evidence of a threat. The trial Court decided Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and Issues No. 2 to 5 against the defendants, dismissing the suit.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed an appeal, contending that the trial Court erred in its findings and failed to appreciate the