89 p9 Civil Revision No25 of 2010 1 IN TIIE HIGH COURr OF PUNJAB ce HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Rcvision No25 0f 2010 IOecidcd on25 220 10 1 Madan Lal Pctitioncr 0 Versus C I C5 Duni Chand andothers CORAM2 HONBLE MR JUSTICE KC PURI Presentl Mr NShrkhawat Advocatc lor thepetitioncr I Mr Vivck Suri Advocatc for the No1 a5 KCPUR1 Je 7 Thc pctitioncr has Olcd this pctitionundcr Articlc 227 ofthe tl Constitutionof India for scttingasidc thc ordcr datcd 242009 lnexure p 11 passedby Sh AmarjcctSingh Additional Civil Judgc Senior DivisionlSirsa and thcjudglncnt datcd 20 12010 lnncxrc P31 passcdby Sh NK Biriwal Additional District Judgc Iasl rack Court Sirsa 1 wherebythe applicalionundcr Ordct 39 Rulcs 1 and 2 read with Scction 151 of the Codc of Civil Procedurc in short thc CPCl Olcd by thc was dismisscd Thc bricf factsof thc casc arc that thc lllcd a suit for permanentinjunctionin the Court ofCivil Judgc6SeniorDivisionl claimingthat hc was a tcnant over the suit land nlcasuring12 kanals 2 r Batra Amit 2013.01.10 15: 28 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 Civil Revision No25 of 2010 2 inarlas situated n villageChattargarh Patti Tchsil and District Sirsa The pctitionerIplaintiff had purchascd 6 kanals 1 marlas of land for which mutationNos 2245 2631 2632 and 2633 wcre dulysanctioned in favour of the Thc was recordedlll of thc cntirc 12 kanals 2 lnarlas of Iand partlyas owncr of thc half shareand partlyas tenanl over thcrclnaining half share in 0 C for the ycars 199495 The sold out his I 0 over 6 kanals l marlaofland ic halfshare ofthe entirekhewat I of 12 kanals2 marlas of Iand and also handed ovcr the of half sharcof thc aforcsaid 12 kanals 2 inarlas of Iand and as a consequence 2 thereofat prescntthe is recorded to be in of I half shareas a tcnant and the rcmaining half sharc is shown to be rccorded c6 underthe posscssion of Sita Ram as owncr Muni Ram and RughaRam O were carlierrccordcd as owncrs of thc said Iand in thc for the 7 years200405 IIowcver Muni Ram had dicd on 1781993 and r1 No 1 to 4 arc his four sons SimilarlyRughaRam dicd in thc year 1964 andhis heirs becamcowncrs of 114 sharc in equalshares Kedar Nath one of the legal of RughaRaln also dicd on 103001 and his thrce sons arc No 5 to 7 in thc suit RajendcrKuinar No8 claims himselto bc nearrclation NoIto 7 Thc suit Iand falls ncar thc abadi arca and with a vlCw to prolcct his cropsthc pctitioncrand his son werc gctting a boundarywall constructcd on the spot for bettcr of thc Iand Whcn the rcspondents thrcatencdto intcrfcrc in thc ofthc thc suit land the SUit for pcrmancntinjunction was fllcd with a prayer to restrain Batra Amit 2013.01.10 15: 28 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 1 rCivil Revision No25 of 2010 3 e thc respondentsfrom intcrfcring Into thc posscssionof the the halfsharc in the suit land ineasuring12 kanals2 inarlas With thcsc broad avennents thc plaintwas fllcd in thc Court of Civil Judgc6ScniorDivisionl Sirsa 1 On notice plcadcdthat thc neverrcmainedin in any capacityin thc suitland mcasui 12 0 0 kanals 2 inarlas l Iowevcr in para No 2 it was adlnittcd that the I 0 had purchascd Iand lneasuring6 kanal 1 lnarlas bcing I half sharc of thc suit land 1Iowcvcr it was statedthc petitionrlplaintiff iIS Z not in of any speciOcportion01 thc land incasuring 12 kanals2 Q inarlasand thc was onlythc cosharer in thc total Iand 12 kanals 2 marlasalongwith thc It Was Z 08 wronglystatedthat thc land was lyingvacant for the last 35 ycars and the suit land was Gair Muinkin m It has bccn allcgcd that both thc Courts bclow coinplctcly Qm ovcrlookcdthc documcnts on record and thc settlcd Iaw Thc Civil Judge himself adlnittcd that theJamabandis for thc ycar 199495 and 1992000 speakabout thc of the petitioncrupon thc suit propcrty Still further for the ycars 200546 also Icads to thc fact that the petitioner had alicnalcd half shareof thc land in qucstionto onc Sita Ram The for thc ycars 19995999JOO 200405 spcakthat the land is Barani Still furtherit was obscrvcd lhat tenancyhas bccn shown as BataeTihai lhe copy of Khasra Girdawri for thc pcriodwc0 199495 to 200708 shows that thc land wlas vacant and nothingwas sown therein the tcnancysceincdin qucstionandthc attached 11 Wr re en e en Batra Amit 2013.01.10 15: 28 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 92 rs Civil Rcvision N0925 of 2010 4 eV with the was rebutted ln fact the said obscrvations were contrary to thc record Thc land in qucstionIS sloown to bc Majrua Silnplybccausc of the fact that thc land has been shown to bc Baranidoes not mean that thc tenancycould not havc bccn existed on such 1 land Still furthcr the Girdawrisfor thc said land in 199495 clearlyshow 1 that mustardcrop was SOW11 andsonletiinesthc othcr crops werc also sowll 0 0 Thc petitionerlS ln of the Khasra Girdawris of thc said Iand I C9 whichclearlyrcvealsthat the crops havc bccn sown froin tiine to timc Evcn I at prescntthe lnustard crop has bccn sown in thc suil Iand and lhe ofthe petitioncr over thc suit Iandhalocbccn anncxedherewith as Annexure P4 I Thc trial Courl aftcr hcaringthc Icarncdcounscl for thc parties 08 dismisscdthc application vidc ordcr datcd 241 009 hc appcal by thc pctitioncragainstthc ordcr datcd 241 009 was also 7 dismissedbythe learncdAdditional District Judgc1ast rack Court Sitsa Qw Fcelingdissatisflcd with thc aforcsaid ordcrs of thc Couits bclow thc this Ccolilt 1 have hcard Iearncd counscl Ior thc partiesand havc gonc through thc rccordsofthc casc Thc Icarncd counscl for thc rcvisionist has submittcdthat both the Courts below havc misunderstoodand thc documcntary evidcnce on thc fllc Thc rcvisionist has bcen shown to bc in posscssion of the suit propertyastenant In fact thclotalland is 12 kanals2 marlas out of which six kanals onc lnarIa Iand tvas olvnedby thc revisionist and that land has bcen sold by hiin hercaftcr thc is still Ill e4n le Batra Amit 2013.01.10 15: 28 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 93 e r Civil Revision No25 of 2010 5 il 1 l P t of six kanals and one lnarla of land as tcnant Both thc Courts bclowhavc siinplydcclined thc injunction on the groundthat in thc khasra the Iand in disputehas bccn shown barani It is contendedthal thc suit Iand has no sourcc of irrigation 1lc samc is sown as and when 1 thercis a rain In soine ofthc khasragirdwariscrop has bccn shown So both the Courts bclow havc coInmittcd grave crror lll disallowingthe 0 C3 for lnjunction I C5 Counscl for lhc rcspondcnl has supportcd lhe judgmcnt of the I trial Court It is subinittedthat arc owncrs in of the suit propcrty vcn constructionhas bccn raiscd Plaintiff ncvcr reinaincd in posscssion of thc propcrty Othcnvise also in thc khasragirdwarithe Iandhas bcen shown to bc not sown l or thc Iast so many ycars So the a5 would be dccmed to be that of owncr in rcspcctof vacant land o The praycr has bccn lnadc for dislnissing thc rCV1SlOll pctltlOll 7 Z I havc gonc throughboth thcordcrspasscdbythe Courts bclow 0a and Ilavealso gonc through thc recordsof thecasc Both thc Courls bclow rclyingupon lhc khasra girdwari rcached to thc conclusion that Iand is lyingvacant and in rcspcctof vacant Iand the owncr of thc land would bc dccmcd to havc bccn in Counsel for thc rcvisionist has placcdOll flle thc copicsof thc khasra girdwariand froin thc pcrusalof thc sainc it is rcvcalcd that from Rabbi 1 1996onwards in th9chasragirdwaricsSUll Iand is lyltl vacant It is IA 1 not disputcdby the Icarnedcounscl lor thc rcvisionist that rcvisionist has haIf shareof thc propcrtywhich has lalcr on sold byhiln It 1S also not owncrsofthc rcmaining halfsharc of P en4 Batra Amit 2013.01.10 15: 28 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 94 J Civil RevisionNo925 of 2010 6 thelandie six kanals onc marla It is sctllcd principlcs of law that a vacant Iand wou Id bc dccmcd to bc in O thc ClWnCr SO in thcsc thc lcarncd both thc Courts bclow havcrightlyhcld that stray entrics showingthc ofthc rcspcctof half tm share of Iand mcasuring twclvc kanals two marlas do not provc the of pctitioncr I Iowcvcr thc fact rcinains that from 1996 till 0 0 2008thc Iandhasbccn shown to bc layingvacanl So no injunctloncan be C5 issuedagainstthc true owncr So ln VlCW of thc abovc discussiotl thc rcvision pctition bythepctitioner has no mcrit and thc samc standsdismisscd m2 I Iowcvcr nothingstatcdhcrcinabovc shall havc any aOcct on thc meritsofthe inain case I c6 A copy of this udglncntbc scnt to thc trial Court for strict weo 1 1 JUDGE CL Februar2S42010 SV Batra Amit 2013.01.10 15: 28 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document