C. R. No. 1717 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1717 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 27, 2009 Biaso Devi and others .... Petitioners Vs. Karam Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot as affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment dated 20.11.2008, thereby accepting application of plaintiff-respondents no.1 and 2 for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC) and restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property except in due course of law during the pendency of suit. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the suit land and other land measuring 15 kanals 02 marlas owned by Sant Ram was, on his death, inherited by his two sons and three daughters in equal shares i.e. three C. R. No. 1717 of 2009 2 kanals each. The said co-sharers got the same partitioned through Revenue Court in the year 1990 and as per partition order, possession of the respective portions was delivered to them exclusively and separately. Mutation regarding partition was also sanctioned. The three daughters sold the land of their share i.e. 09 kanals 01 marla, which is the suit land and ultimately the plaintiffs purchased the same and they claim themselves to be owners in possession. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that Samitri Devi daughter of Sant Ram has challenged the Power of Attorney executed by her and the subsequent sales of the suit land made by her alleged attorney. It is also alleged that Sant Ram had executed Will in favour of defendant no.2 and consequently, defendant no.2 is owner in possession of the suit land. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. There is partition order of the Revenue Court and on its basis, mutation was also sanctioned. Possession was also delivered to the co- sharers separately of the portions falling to their share in the partition order. The plaintiffs are subsequent vendees of the suit land from three co-sharers, to whose share the suit land had fallen in the partition order. The courts below have, therefore, rightly found prima facie that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. Merely because Samitri Devi has challenged the Power of Attorney or merely because defendant no.2 has filed suit on the basis of Will allegedly executed in his favour by Sant Ram, it cannot be said that defendants or for that matter defendant no.2 is prima facie in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, there is concurrent prima facie finding by both the courts below that plaintiffs are prima facie in possession of the suit land and said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the C. R. No. 1717 of 2009 3 Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently referred to spot inspection report (Annexure P-2) mentioning that Biaso Devi petitioner- defendant no.1 is in possession of the suit land. However, it is defendants' own version that it is defendant petitioner no.2 Kamal Kishore, who is in possession of the suit land. It is correct that Kamal Kishore is son of Biaso Devi, but spot inspection report does not say that Kamal Kishore is in possession of the suit land. Moreover, much importance cannot be attached to the spot inspection report because spot inspection cannot determine as to which party is in possession of the suit land. Moreover, this spot inspection report also says that Biaso Devi is also owner of the suit land, but it is not even the case of the defendants that Biaso Devi is owner of the suit land. On the other hand, this spot inspection was effected in the absence of plaintiffs or their predecessors. Earlier part of the report mentions that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as per revenue record. However, merely on the basis of spot inspection, it was reported that Biaso Devi is owner as well as in possession of the suit land. Said report cannot be given much importance. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the courts below so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is without substance and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein above shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. March 27, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE