C. R. No. 3659 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3659 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 27, 2010 Surjit Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Darshan Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. H. S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendants no.1, 2 and 4 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging judgment dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. Darshan Singh – respondent no.1 filed suit against petitioners and respondents no.2 to 4. Along with suit, plaintiff moved application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants no. 1 to 4 from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land including the house constructed therein, till disposal of the suit. The plaintiff alleged that he has got the suit land measuring 31 kanals 08 marlas from his father Sajjan Singh - defendant no.6 in oral family partition. In fact, Sajjan Singh had C. R. No. 3659 of 2010 2 performed two marriages. Plaintiff and defendant no.5 were born out of the first marriage of Sajjan Singh, whereas defendants no.1 to 4 were born out of the second marriage of Sajjan Singh. Defendants no.1 to 4, in connivance with Sajjan Singh – defendant no.6, threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff has even constructed his residential house there and is residing there for the last 35 years. Electricity connection is also installed in the house in his name. Defendants no.1, 2 and 4 contested the suit and controverted the allegations of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. Sajjan Singh – defendant no.6 has transferred the suit land in favour of defendants no.1 to 4, who are in its possession as owners. It was also pleaded that entries in khasra girdawari have been corrected in favour of defendants no.1 to 4 vide order dated 19.07.2008 by Assistant Collector Second Grade. Even relationship of plaintiff and defendant no.5 being son and daughter of defendant no.6 was denied. Contesting defendants also alleged that the house was constructed by Sajjan Singh and now defendants no.1 to 4 are in possession thereof. Defendant no.5 supported the claim of the plaintiff, whereas defendants no.3 and 6 were proceeded ex-parte. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran, vide order dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure P-3), dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. However, appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the C. R. No. 3659 of 2010 3 said order has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure P-4) and thereby, defendants no.1 to 4 have been restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land till final decision of the suit. The said judgment of the appellate court is under challenge in the instant revision petition at the hands of defendants no.1, 2 and 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Admittedly, revenue record depicted exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Petitioners managed to get the khasra girdawari entries changed in their names from the Revenue Officer during pendency of the suit. The said change has been rightly ignored by the lower appellate court. Electricity connection in the house existing in the suit land is also in the name of plaintiff, who is residing there. However, the petitioners even went to the extent of denying that plaintiff and defendant no.5 are son and daughter of defendant no.6. The conduct of the petitioners prima facie shows their dishonesty. On the other hand, revenue record prima facie establishes the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and therefore, appellate court has rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that even according to the version of the plaintiff, he would at best become co- C. R. No. 3659 of 2010 4 sharer in the suit land and therefore, injunction could not be granted against the petitioners. The contention cannot be accepted. At this stage, only question of prima facie possession is to be determined for the purpose of temporary injunction. The question of family settlement and title would be decided in the suit after the parties lead their evidence. Consequently, the aforesaid contention has no relevance for this revision petition relating to matter of temporary injunction only. The appellate court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff for sufficient reasons. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the appellate court. The plaintiff is prima facie in possession of the suit property on the basis of material on record. There is no material on record to depict possession of defendants no.1 to 4 (including the petitioners) except that they managed to get khasra girdawari entries corrected in their favour during pendency of the suit, but the said correction made during pendency of the suit cannot be attached any weight at this stage. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. May 27, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE