Civil Revision No. 3239 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3239 of 2009 Date of decision : April 26, 2010 Raj Kumar and others ....Petitioners versus Dharam Pal and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. L.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. SK Jain, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiffs have filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after having been unsuccessful in obtaining temporary injunction from both the courts below. Plaintiffs alleged that their grand father Mukh Ram was tenant in possession of the suit land and on his death in the year 1973, his both sons Chandu Ram (father of the plaintiffs) and Dharam Pal defendant no. 1 became tenants in possession and after death of Chandu Ram in the year 1983, the plaintiffs being his two sons and widow became tenant in possession of the half share of the suit land being legal heirs of Chandu Ram. The plaintiffs sought declaration to this effect and in the alternative sought relief of possession of half share of the suit land. Plaintiffs also Civil Revision No. 3239 of 2009 -2- claimed permanent injunction. By moving application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs claimed temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land till final decision of the suit. The defendants alleged that Chandu Ram was married to one Chandro and had a son and two daughters from the said wedlock but later on Chandu Ram developed illicit relationship with Santra Devi plaintiff no. 3 and out of this wedlock, plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 are illegitimate sons of Chandu Ram. It was pleaded that plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 were aged one or two years only at the time of death of Chandu Ram. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs never came into possession of the suit land and defendant no. 1 alone is in its possession continuously since death of Chandu Ram. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa vide order dated 22.9.2006, Annexure P/1, dismissed plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa vide judgment dated 14.3.2009, Annexure P/3. Both the said orders have been challenged in the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners being heirs of Chandu Ram are entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights of half share of the suit land. However, this contention does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. Even if it is assumed that the petitioners are entitled to inherit tenancy rights of Chandu Ram in half Civil Revision No. 3239 of 2009 -3- share of suit land, it would not depict that petitioners are prima facie in possession of the suit land or any share or part thereof. On the other hand, petitioners' predecessor Chandu Ram died in the year 1983 and the suit was instituted in the year 2006 i.e. after almost 26 years and during this long period there was no entry in revenue record in favour of the petitioners depicting their possession over any share or part of the suit land. On the other hand, revenue entries since the year 1989-90 are consistently depicting possession of defendant no. 1 only and prior to it, possession of Mukh Ram father of defendant no. 1 and Chandu Ram was depicted. For almost 17 years before filing of the suit, defendant no. 1 was depicted to be in possession of the suit land in the revenue record. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the orders of the courts below in holding prima facie that defendant no. 1 is in possession of the suit land and petitioners are not in possession thereof. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no illegality in the judgments of the courts below so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being bereft of any merit. It is however expressly made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 26, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'