Satnam Singh And Others vs Kuldip Singh And Others on 24 July, 2009

Civil Revision. No. 6072 of 2007                                     1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                              Civil Revision. No. 6072 of 2007
                              Date of decision:24th July, 2009


Satnam Singh and others
                                                .....Petitioners

                        Versus

Kuldip Singh and others
                                                ......Respondents


Before:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA


Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
         for the petitioners.



RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

The petitioners challenges an order dated 27.09.2007,

passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, accepting the

appeal filed by the respondents, by setting aside the order dated

29.03.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Jalandhar and directing the parties to maintain staus quo.

The respondents nos. 1 to 5, filed a suit for

declaration, claiming to be owners in possession of the suit land,

and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners

from interfering in their possession. Upon notice on the

application for ad interim injunction, the petitioners filed a written

statement denying the ownership or the possession of the

respondents. The learned trial court vide order dated

29.03.2007, dismissed the application by holding that there was
Civil Revision. No. 6072 of 2007 2

nothing on the record to hold that the respondents were owners

or in possession. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the

respondents filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge,

Jalandhar, vide order dated 27.09.2007, allowed the appeal and

set aside the order dated 29.03.2007, passed by the trial court

and held that the sale deed dated 5.08.1957 clearly establishes

the ownership of the respondents and the mere fact that the

revenue authorities have failed to enter a mutation in respect

thereof, would not disentitle the respondents to pray for

protection of their possession.

Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the order

passed by the Additional District Judge, is erroneous in fact and

in law. The sale deed dated 5.08.1957 was never produced

before the revenue authorities and having not been acted upon

for 50 years, should not have been considered, as sufficient

evidence of the respondents, prima facie ownership and

possession. The first appellate court erred in accepting the appeal

and directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to

the suit property.

Despite service, no one has put in appearance on

behalf of the respondents.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused

the impugned order.

I find no error in the discharge of discretion by the

appellate court in directing the parties to maintain status quo.

The sale deed dated 5.08.1957, prima facie, establishes the

ownership of the respondents. The absence of entries in the
Civil Revision. No. 6072 of 2007 3

revenue record would not disentitle the respondents to interim

relief as their claim is based upon a sale deed. The order

directing the parties to maintain status quo does not affect the

rights of the petitioners and even otherwise, would not cause

any loss, harm or damage to them but if not granted would lead

to multiplicity of proceedings and further complications for the

parties.

Dismissed.

[RAJIVE BHALLA]
JUDGE
24th July, 2009
SKaushik