IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

119

CR No.2681 of 2020

DATE OF DECISION : 9^TH APRIL, 2021

Amir Singh

…. Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Ranjna

…. Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

============

In virtual Court

============

Present :

Mr. Raman Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * *

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Articles 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging order dated 19.11.2020 (Annexure P-1)

passed by the lower appellate court, whereby order dated 03.07.2020

(Annexure P-2) passed by the trial court granting interim injunction in favour

of the petitioner, has been set aside and the petitioner/plaintiff has been

declined the interim order.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the trial court

had rightly passed the order granting injunction in favour of the petitioner after

perusing the documents on record and in view of the fact that the petitioner is

shown in cultivating possession as tenant continuously for the past so many

years. It is further submitted that the petitioner was very much in possession of

the suit land on the date when he filed the suit. At that time the respondent-

Ranjna was owner of the suit land. However, thereafter she transferred the

land in favour of her son. But the possession of the petitioner was never

RAJ KUMAR

2021.04.28 16:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No.2681 of 2020 (O&M)

-2-

disturbed. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the lower

appellate court qua the aspect that the petitioner was not a lawful tenant, could

not have been recorded by the lower appellate court. Such a finding can come

only after leading of the evidence by the respective parties. It is further

submitted that as per the last existing jamabandi, the petitioner was shown to

be in cultivating possession on batai 1/3^rd. Hence, the findings recorded by the

court below, qua the petitioner not being in possession of the suit property, is

factually incorrect.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate assisting Mr. Akshay Bhan,

Senior Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent-defendant

that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the suit property earlier.

However, in the year 2016 he surrendered the possession. Even the

jamabandi for the year 2014-2015, upon which the petitioner has relied

upon to claim possession being a tenant on 1/3^rd batai, stands corrected

by the competent revenue authorities by passing appropriate orders. The

authorities had even conducted spot inspection to verify as to who was in

possession of the suit property. Even in the spot inspection the

authorities confirmed that it was the respondent who was in possession of

the suit property as sole owner of the same. The petitioner even

challenged that change/correction of the jamabandi for the year 2014-

2015 while filing the appeal before the statutory revenue authority.

However, even the said appeal has already been dismissed. Therefore, as

of today there is nothing to show the cultivating possession of the

petitioner on the date when he filed the suit. It is further submitted by the

counsel for the respondent that the objection of the petitioner that the

RAJ KUMAR

2021.04.28 16:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No.2681 of 2020 (O&M)

-3-

lower appellate court has recorded finding which could have been

recorded only after taking evidence from the respective parties, is totally

misconceived. It is obvious that the observations of the lower appellate

court, which the petitioner is apprehending as findings, are made only for

the disposal of the application moved for interim relief. It is further

submitted that there is nothing on record or pleaded by the petitioner as

to under what agreement of tenancy