C.R.No.6837 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.6837 of 2009
Date of Decision 23.11.2009
Bachna Ram and other
........ Petitioners
Versus
Data Ram & another
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr.Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present petition by the defendant is to the
orders dated 2.9.2009 and 25.4.2008, passed by the courts below whereby
the defendants-petitioners were restrained from dispossessing the
plaintiffs-respondents from the suit property.
The defendants-petitioners alleged to have purchase the suit
property vide sale deed dated 19.7.1981, from Tulsi. One Bhura was
recorded as a person in possession of the land as a Gair Marusi tenant as
per the jamabandi for the year 1971-72, on payment 1/3rd of the farm
produce on Batai. The said entries were continued in the jamabandi for the
years 1986-87, 1991-92, 1996-97 and 2001-2002 as well. The plaintiffs-
defendants are the legal heirs of Bhura. Both the Courts have granted ad
interim injunction for the reason that the tenancy rights were inherited by
the plaintiffs after the death of Bhura, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be
dispossessed forcibly.
C.R.No.6837 of 2009 -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued
that the petitioner has purchased the suit property and is in possession
from the date of purchase. However, the said argument is not tenable for
the reason that even on the date of purchase, Bhura was recorded as a
person in possession of the land as Gair Marusi tenant. There is no
assertion that the tenant was ordered to be evicted which fact alone could
revert the possession in favour of the owner.
In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or
irregularity in the orders passed by the courts below, which may warrant
interference by this Court in the present revision petition.
Dismissed.
November 23, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) rishu JUDGE