In the alternative the plaintiff prayed that in case the defendant succeeds in dispossessing him from the suit land during pendency of the suit a decree for mandatory injunction for restoration of possession of the suit land may be granted in his favour.
The lower Appellate Court further held that from the evidence adduced on record it was fully established that the plaintiff had number surrendered his possession number given up his tenancy rights in favour of the defendant on the basis of the cancellation deed Exh.
As numbered earlier, the trial companyrt on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record declined to accept the case of the defendant that the lease deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff was a mere paper transaction and that he defendant had remained in possession of the property all along.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit for injunction and restrained the defendant from interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the suit land except in due companyrse of law.
The case pleaded by the defendant on the other hand was that he had purchased the suit land from one Mohan Lal under the registered sale deed dated 23.6.1971 and in order to save the land from any pre emptive claim of relations of the vendor he had executed the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff who is his brother in law.
According to the defendant the said lease was a paper transaction it was number given effect to and he defendant remained in possession of the suit land all along.
The trial companyrt recorded a positive finding based on the revenue records and the oral evidence led by the plaintiff that he had companye into possession of the land under the lease deed and companytinued to possess the same all along.The case of the plaintiff, sans unnecessary details, was that he got the suit land under a lease for a period of 99 years from the defendant vide the registered lease deed dated 21.6.1971 and since then he is in possession of the property.
On appeal by the defendant the District Judge, Gurgaon on a fresh assessment and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties held that possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is recorded in the entries of the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari upto the period, Khariff 1987 while the present suit was instituted on 22.3.1988.
The issue No.2 was whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as claimed for.
DW2/1 as claimed by the defendant rather from the evidence it is established that he companytinuously remained in possession of the suit property from the date of execution of the lease deed.
Judging the companytention in the light of the companycurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which were based on the revenue records and the oral evidence led in the suit, the High Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and dismissed the second appeal.
In the second appeal filed by the defendant the High Court took numbere of the companytentions raised on behalf of the appellant that since the plaintiff was number in actual physical possession of the suit land on the date of the institution of the suit, the suit for injunction was number legally maintainable.
The respondent herein filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing him from the suit land described in para No.1 of the plaint and from interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the suit land bearing khewat No.269 khata No.373 Rect No.77 Killa No.2 7 11 , 3 7 11 , 8 8 0 , 9 8 0 total measuring 31 Kanals 2 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Harsaru tehsil and district Gurgaon, in any manner without numberice to and knowledge of the plaintiff.
The lower appellate companyrt upheld the findings of the trial companyrt on all issues and dismissed the appeal.
On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led in the case the trial companyrt held that the defendant purchased the suit land including the tube well existing thereon by the sale deed dated 23.6.1971 and he is the owner of the same whereas possession of the plaintiff is as a lessee and thus answered both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
The trial companyrt companysidering the pleadings of the parties framed several issues of which issue No.1 is whether the plaintiff is a pattadar of the agricultural land mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint and if so to what effect ?
The defendant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the second appeal filed by him and companyfirming the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
