Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8233
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
GAJNA AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
BITTU AND ORS – Respondent
/5490/2022
A plaintiff seeking an injunction must establish prima facie possession over the suit land.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - OWNERSHIP - [The plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie possession over the suit land, despite claiming to have inherited it from their father, who was recorded as a 'Gair Marusi' tenant. The court held that an injunction against the true owner in favor of a trespasser in settled possession could only be granted if the true owner intended to dispossess the trespasser with excessive force, which was not the case here.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over a suit land, claiming to have inherited it from their father, who was recorded as a 'Gair Marusi' tenant. The trial court granted an ad-interim injunction, which was later set aside by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie possession over the suit land and had not provided any cogent material or revenue record to support their claim. The court also noted that the observations in Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. (supra) were not applicable as the true owner (defendants) did not intend to dispossess the plaintiffs with excessive force.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs had established prima facie possession over the suit land to be entitled to an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: To obtain an injunction, the plaintiffs must establish prima facie possession over the suit land. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden and that the appellate court was correct in setting aside the ad-interim injunction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the appellate court was upheld.
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.5490 of 2022
Date of Decision: 09.01.2023
Smt. Gajna and others
…Petitioners
Versus
Bittu and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present :-
Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * * * *
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioners-
plaintiffs (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the plaintiffs’) have laid challenge
to the judgment dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure P-10) handed down by
learned Additional District Judge, Palwal (for short ‘the Appellate Court’),
whereby the appeal preferred by respondents No.1 to 6-defendants (here-
in-after to be referred as ‘the defendants’) to assail the order dated
03.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Hodal (for short ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.670 of 2022
titled as ‘Gajna and Others vs. Bittu and Others’, has been allowed and
the application moved by them (plaintiffs) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read
with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.
2.
As per the brief factual-matrix leading to the filing of the
present revision petition, the plaintiffs have filed the said Civil Suit against
YAG DUTT
2023.01.17 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CR No.5490 of 2022
-2-
the defendants and proforma respondent No.7 for seeking a decree for the
declaration to the effect that they (plaintiffs) are the owners in possession
of the suit land and they have further prayed for the relief of permanent
injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in their peaceful
possession over the same, while averring that they have inherited this land
from their father named Bihari Lal (since deceased). On the self-same
facts, they (plaintiffs) moved the afore-mentioned application for seeking
ad-interim injunction which was allowed by the trial Court vide the order
Annexure P-8. Then, the defendants preferred an appeal against the said
order and the same has been allowed by the Appellate Court vide the
impugned judgment (Annexure P-10).
3.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs in
this revision petition, at the preliminary stage and have also gone through
the file carefully.
4.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that said Bihari
Lal, the father of the plaintiffs, was in possession over the suit land as the
‘Gair Marusi’ tenant as shown in the copy of ‘Jamabandi’ Annexure P-1
and after his death, the plaintiffs came in possession over the said land, by
way of the natural flow of inheritance but the defendants, who are their
(plaintiffs’) collaterals, are interfering in their possession over this land
with intention to oust them from the same forcibly and illegally and the
trial Court had rightly considered these facts and had allowed the above-
said application vide order Annexure P-8 but however, vide the impugned
judgment, the Appellate Court has wrongly allowed the appeal preferred by
YAG DUTT
2023.01.17 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CR No.5490 of 2022
-3-
the defendants against the afore-referred order and has dismissed the said
application and therefore, the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable
and hence, it deserves to be set-aside. To buttress his contentions, he places
reliance upon the observations made by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda
(D) by Lrs. Versus Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Anr, 2004(1)
SCC 769.
5.
However, the above-raised contentions are devoid of any merit
because for seeking the relief of injunction, the plaintiffs have to prima-
facie establish the factum of their possession over the suit land. Though,
they claim to have come into the possession over this
