The burden of proof in property disputes shifts based on possession and registered documents, affecting the outcome of injunction applications.

1. This petition, under Art.227 of the Constitution of India , has been preferred against the order dated 9/11/2021, passed by the Court of 8 District Judge, Gwalior in Miscellaneous Civil Appeals bearing MCA No.10 / 2016 and 13/2016, whereby order dated 4/3/2016 passed by the Court of 13 Civil Judge, Class - II, Gwalior in Civil Suit bearing RCS No.47A / 2014 allowing application, filed by the respondent No.1 under Order XXXIX R.1 and R.2 CPC, was affirmed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.1 / plaintiff - Bhagwati Prasad Gupta filed a Civil Suit bearing RCS No.47A / 2014 before the Court of 13th Civil Judge, Class - II, Gwalior for declaration of his title over the land bearing survey No.508 Min - 10 (0.105 hectare) and to restrain petitioners / defendant Nos. 3, 6, 7 and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 / defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 from interfering in his possession over the said land, which is disputed in the matter. He pleaded in his plaint that he had purchased the aforesaid disputed land from Ganga Singh vide registered sale deed dated 14/2/1983. He thereafter, get the same mutated in his name in the revenue records, get constructed boundary wall and since then, he is in possession of the same. He after mortgaging the same with Nagarik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Gwalior, obtained a loan from the said bank. On 8/5/2015, defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 tried to interfere in his possession over the disputed land, therefore, he filed a Writ Petition bearing WP No.3158/2015 before this Court, wherein vide order dated 26/5/2015 he was provided security with a direction to him to approach the Civil Court. Thereafter, he filed the aforesaid civil suit along with an application under Order XXXIX R.1 and R.2 CPC for grant of interim injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 7. Petitioners objected the prayer and stated that since boundaries of the land purchased by the respondent No.1 have not been mentioned in the sale deed dated 14/2/1983, executed in his favour, therefore, it cannot be said that he had purchased the disputed land. Petitioner No.1 / defendant No.3 - Smt. Saroj Parashar and petitioners No.2 and 3 / defendant Nos.6 and 7 have purchased the disputed land vide registered sale deeds dated 13/5/1996 and 3/5/2012, executed by Smt. Urmila Dhingra and Ashok Singh respectively in their favour. Petitioners are in possession of the disputed land. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 4/3/2016, passed in Civil Suit bearing RCS No.47A / 2014 allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order XXXIX R.1 and R.2 CPC. Against which, petitioners filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal bearing MCA No.10/2016, while other respondents filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal bearing MCA No.13/2016, which were dismissed vide impugned order dated 9/11/2021. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendant Nos.3, 6 and 7 submits that in the registered sale deed dated 14/2/1983, executed in favour of the respondent No.1, boundaries of the land purchased by him have not been mentioned and he has not produced any other document to show the fact that vide aforesaid registered sale deed dated 14/2/1983, he had purchased the disputed land and he is in possession thereof. On the other hand, in the registered sale deeds, executed in favour of predecessors of the petitioners, boundaries of the land clearly show that they purchased the disputed land. Entries of municipal records also support the aforesaid facts. Hence, only on the basis of entries of Khasra Panchshala and Kishtbandi Khatoni, learned Trial Court has committed an error in finding prima facie case in his favour.