The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is one of superintendence, limited to ensuring lower courts act within their authority, and it cannot be exercised as an appellate power to re-appreciate evidence or disturb factual findings regarding interim injunctions.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The present petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. in CIS Registration No. 20 of 2023, titled Ram Krishan and others vs. Dhani Ram & others, whereby appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC filed by the present respondents was allowed and the Order dated 25.04.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. was set aside, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit under Sections 36, 38, and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking a declaration to the following effect:

(a) that plaintiff no. 1 is owner to the extent of 4/12 (1/3) share & defendants 1 to 3 are owner of 8/12 in land bearing khata 242, khatoni 297, khasra 1393 area 00-24-35 hectares, jamabandi 2013-2014, mohal Mat umran, Sub Tehsil Pragpur, Tehsil Dehra, Distt. Kangra (HP) and revenue entries to the contrary are wrong, illegal, unauthorized, void-ab-initio & mutation no. 169 dated 16-07-1994 conferring proprietary rights upon Sh. Rulia i.e. predecessor - in - interest of defendant no 1 to 3 granting one half ownership right/ share upon him & now continuing in favour of his successors (defendants 1 to 3) are also wrong illegal and has no effect upon the 1/3rd share of plaintiff no. 1 i.e Dhani Ram. and defendants 1 to 3 have no right to get the share separated from the revenue authorities on the basis of wrong entries/shares alongwith decree for perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from changing the nature/user of suit land and making any alienation or create any charge/or/encumbrance of any kind upon said land till title is cleared by the court.

(b) that plaintiff no. 1 has 1/3rd share and plaintiff 2 and 3 have 1/3rd share in land bearing khata 241, khatoni 296, khasra 1382, 1385, 1389, 1395, kita 4 area 00-23-86 hectares, jamabandi 2013-2014, mahaal Mat Umraan, Sub Tehsil Pragpur, Tehsil Dehra, Distt. Kangra (HP) and revenue entries to the contrary are wrong illegal & mutation 169 dated 16-07-1994 conferring proprietary rights qua ½ share upon Sh. Rulia s/o Bhagtu i.e. predecessor - in - interest of defendants 1 to 3 are wrong illegal, unauthorized and all further entries in favour of defendants 1 to 3 are also wrong illegal and have no basis and defendants 1 to 3 have no rights to get the share separated from the revenue authorities on the basis of wrong entries/shares alongwith decree for perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from changing the nature/user of suit land and making any alienation or create any charge/or/encumbrance of any kind upon said land till title is cleared by the court.

(c) that plaintiffs are tenant-at-will to the extent of 2/3rd share (plaintiff 1 =1/3rdShare) + (plaintiffs 2 &3 = 1/3 share) under defendant 1 to 9 and owner to the extent of 124/432 (62/216) share and defendants 1 to 3 are tenant at will to the extent of 1/3rd share under defendant 4 to 9 and owner to the extent of 62/432 share over land bearing khata 243, khatoni 298, khasra 1383, 1387, 1392, 1384, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1394, 1386 area 00-88-14 hectares, and revenu