IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6839 of 2008 Date of decision : July 2, 2009 Sukhwinder Kaur Petitioner Versus Jagtar Singh Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Jai Veer Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner - Sukhwinder Kaur has assailed the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal whereby he partly allowed the appeal and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit land. The parties are not at variance quo the fact that Punjab Wakf Board now Haryana Wakf Board is recorded as owner of the suit property but no relief is being sought against the Wakf board. Sukhwinder Kaur, respondent and others have claimed possession over the suit property on the basis of revenue records whereas the respondent claims himself to be a lessee under the Wakf Board. The trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by petitioner vide order dated 29.9.2008 whereas the First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Having perused the records, the land is under lease with C.R. No. 6839 of 2008 2 three brothers including husband of the petitioner namely Bhagwant Singh, Jagtar Singh - defendant and one Avtar Singh at the rate of Rs. 198/- per annum. The Haryana Wakf Board, no doubt is the owner but the board has not been impleaded as party to the suit, whereas, as per revenue record, the petitioner is in possession of the suit land. Copies of jamabandi for the year 1978-1979 till 2003-2004 and copies of khasra girdawari since year 1994 till the year 2008 support this fact . Be that it may the Wakf Board has been issuing receipts in the name of all the three brothers but by any mutual arrangement otherwise they allowed the petitioner to cultivate the land which fact would be proved by way of evidence. However, mere issuance of receipts in the name of three brothers is hardly sufficient to rebut the revenue records. No documents have been brought on record in order to prima facie to indicate and rebut the documentary evidence in the shape of the revenue record that the respondent ever entered into possession of the suit property. However, the trial Court has misinterpreted the receipts and has erred in holding that the lease receipts over ride the revenue record. But as a matter of fact the entries in the revenue record are sufficient to prima facie establish the possession of the plaintiff. As such the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court appears to be not correct and having been passed in order to create confusion and allow them to enter into melee. Resultantly, I allow this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and restore the order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the trial court. (A.N.JINDAL) 02.07.2009 JUDGE reena