Kali Ram Sharma Son Of Shri Sahaja Son Of ... vs Ram Karan Son Of Sahaja Ram And Others on 31 July, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kali Ram Sharma Son Of Shri Sahaja Son Of ... vs Ram Karan Son Of Sahaja Ram And Others on 31 July, 2012

Bench: K. Kannan

C.R. No.4258 of 2012                                -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH
                                C.R. No.4258 of 2012
                                Date of Decision.31.07.2012

Kali Ram Sharma son of Shri Sahaja son of Chander resident of village Bhalsi
Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat
                                                       .....Petitioner
                                  Versus

Ram Karan son of Sahaja Ram and others                    .....Respondents

Present:     Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate
             for petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
      judgment ? No
2.    To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
                                        -.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioner, whose claim for interim injunction has been denied at the trial Court as well as in the Appellate Court at the interlocutory stage, is in revision before this Court. The petitioner's contention is that he is owner in possession of the property from the time of consolidation for over three decades and the jamabandi for the year 2001 shows that he is in possession of the property. The contention raised in defence by the contesting respondents was that the defendants No.4 to 6 were purchasers from the legal heirs of Fateh Singh, who was admittedly the owner of the property and has found recorded as such owner even in the jamabandies relied on by the plaintiff. Even in the year 2000-01 jamabandi, although the plaintiffs have been shown as gair marusian, the owner is shown as Fateh Singh and Ajay in equal shares. If a suit is filed by a tenant admitting the ownership of the landlords and claiming that his possession shall not be disturbed except by due process C.R. No.4258 of 2012 -2- and application for injunction could be entertained. On the other hand if the contention were going to be notwithstanding the entry of the Fateh Singh as an owner, he or his legal representatives cannot stake any claim over the property and the petitioner is entitled to an injunction as owner especially when such a claim is against the revenue records, it cannot be granted. A person, who is prima facie shown to be a tenant will verify a right to hold his possession if he denies the title of the landlord. The denial of injunction has been made on the basis of prima facie proof available for the contentions of ownership claimed by the defendants in a case where the plaintiff was denying the ownership against the defendants. The dismissal of the injunction application before the Courts below was perfectly justified and I find no reason to interfere with the same.

2. The revision petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 31, 2012 Pankaj*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court