A plaintiff must prove ownership and current possession for temporary injunction in adverse possession cases, failing which the application may be dismissed.

ORDER The present appeal has been preferred, at the instance of the original plaintiff, under the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 (r), of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order dated 26/09/2024 passed in Civil Suit th No. 675-A/2024 by the Learned XII Additional District Judge, Bhopal whereby an application Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction has been dismissed.

2. In pith and substance, the plaintiff instituted a Civil Regular Suit bearing No. 675-A/2024 (Syed Nazir Hussain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction. This application was decided by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH as the "Impugned Order"), which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. The averments in the suit reveal that the plaintiff has instituted the suit claiming ownership by way of adverse possession over a house and land situated at Khasra No. 92, admeasuring 1.1970 hectares.The postal address of the said land is Gali No. 2, Shalimar Apartment, Shahjahanabad, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). A house admeasuring 3736 square feet is constructed over the suit property along with remaining land about 4899 square feet left open and the same is utilized as parking space by the plaintiff and family. It is submitted in the suit that the total suit property is 8635 square feet. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property since last 40 years. The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the defendant no. 3 has tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. These facts culminated in the filing of the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. The main bone of contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has continuous possession over the suit property since last 40 years and therefore he became owner of the suit property by claiming adverse possession over the suit property.

4. The defendants have entered appearance and filed a reply to the application along with various supporting documents. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have denied the averments made in the application and submitted that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH land bearing Khasra No. 92 is recorded in the revenue records as Government land. Since the land in question is government owned, no prima facie case is made out in favor of the plaintiff, nor has the plaintiff suffered any loss or injury as alleged.

5. The defendant no. 3 has filed its reply claiming himself as owner of the suit property. He has also submitted that between the same parties one another suit filed by the plaintiff is pending consideration for the same suit property. The family of the defendant no. 3 has many more properties. The mother and uncle (Mama) of the defendant no. 3 has kept the plaintiff as care taker of the suit property and the plaintiff use to work as Chowkidar. The plaintiff was paid for work of care taker. It was also stated in the reply that the plaintiff on 22/11/2021 has applied for grant of lease to the collector, which was rejected by the collector. The property in question was purchased by Smt. Ajara Harun Arab and Naseem Harun Arab and this fact was not di