S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2819/2010 Devi Lal and ors. Vs. Vishwanath Palliwal & Anr. Dated : 22.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Amit Mathur, for the appellants. *** Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 16th April, 2010 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Hindaun City, directed both the parties to maintain the status quo till the decision of the suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the impugned orders. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the learned trial Court has directed both the parties to maintain status quo of the disputed land on the ground that the entries in the revenue record were wrongly made by the Settlement Department on the basis of which Rajendra Dhakar sold the land to appellant No.1 & 2, whereas the land, in fact, belonged to the respondent- plaintiff- Vishwanath Palliwal. 4. Learned counsel further canvassed that on the ground of sale deed, the appellants got the lease deed and patta also from Municipality, Hindaun City. Thus, all the rights with regard to the disputed land have been created in their favour. The appellants No.1 and 2, in the light of the impugned order, cannot use -2- the disputed land properly. Hence, the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully scanned the impugned order, it is noticed that initially the entire land bore Khasra No.1197, which was later on renumbered as 1197/1, 1197/2 and 1197/1/2. The land pertaining to Khasra No.1197/1 was in possession of the respondent- plaintiff- Vishwanath Palliwal, land pertaining to Khasra No.1197/2 was in possession of Bhonri Lal, Mishri Lal and the land relating to Khasra No.1197/1/2 was in possession of Bajrang Lal and Banwari Lal, whereupon the Pakka construction, well etc. were in existence for the last 50 years. These Khasra Numbers were again renumbered as 1955, 1956 and 1957. As per the submissions of the respondent- plaintiff, the Settlement Department made a wrong entry of the disputed land and on the basis of which the appellant-Rajendra Dhakar sold this land to the appellants No.1 and 2, namely Devi Lal and Smt. Angoori Devi. The appellants Devi Lal and Smt. Angoori Devi got the lease deed from the Municipal Board, Hindaun City, District Karauli. That being so, the plaintiff-respondent Vishwanath Palliwal filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. -3- 6. There being counter claims with regard to the property in question and as the facts and circumstances have emerged on record, the learned trial Court is found to have rightly directed both the parties to maintain the status quo on the land in question till the suit is decided. The impugned order, under the circumstances, seems to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. From no stretch of imagination the impugned order can be said to be perverse or capricious or improper. If the appellants are in possession of the disputed land, they shall continue to remain in possession and maintain the status quo of the land in question as of today, in future. 7. The appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. In view of above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed in limine. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item no.16.