IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 657 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Sh. Noor Mohammad & others .....Petitioners. Versus Sh. Balwan Singh & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Jitender P. Ranote, Advocate, vice Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). Respondents, claiming themselves to be joint owners, have filed a suit for declaration of their title qua suit land measuring 2-73-86 hectares, situate in Mohal Gaglu, Mauza Bari, Tehsil Baroh, District Kangra, as described in the plaint, against the present petitioners, who have been impleaded as defendants. Permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession has also been claimed. Suit has been contested by the defendants. Their plea is that out of the suit land, 1-36-93 hectares land is in their exclusive possession, which was sold to them by Muneer Mohammad, who, in turn, had purchased the same from Gurnam Singh and Suresh Kumar, previous joint owners with 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- the plaintiffs and that said Muneer Mohammad had been put in exclusive possession of 1-36-93 hectares land, described by various Khasra numbers and when the defendants/petitioners purchased the said land from said Muneer Mohammad, they were put in possession of these very numbers. Sale deed in favour of the petitioners/defendants has also been challenged by the plaintiffs. 2. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was moved by the respondents/plaintiffs, seeking grant of temporary injunction, during the pendency of the suit. Trial Court dismissed that application. In the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, learned District Judge has ordered the maintenance of status quo, till the decision of the suit. Order is dated 9.9.2009, Annexure P-4. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against this order. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the trial Court, which was requisitioned. 4. From the jamabandis pertaining to the suit land, it cannot be made out whether petitioners/defendants are in exclusive possession of any portion of the suit land. Gurnam Singh and Suresh Kumar, from whom Muneer Mohammad purchased 1-36-93 hectares land, entered against khatauni Nos. 40 and 41, as per entry in jamabandi for the year 1978-79, were not in exclusive possession of those khataunis. The present petitioners are vendees from Muneer Mohammad. Since, Gurnam Singh and Suresh Kumar were not in exclusive possession of the aforesaid two khataunis, it cannot -: 3 :- be said that they put Muneer Mohammad in possession of those khataunis and when Muneer Mohammad sold the property to the petitioners, the latter were put in possession by Muneer Mohammad. 5. In view of the abovesaid position, no fault can be found with the order of maintenance of status quo, as passed by the learned District Judge. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge July 16th, 2010 (rajni)