Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit of declaration, permanent injunction without having physical possession--- Scope--- Both contesting parties sought separate declaratory decree on the basis of the mutations in their respective favour---Trial Court consolidated civil suits and later passed the declaratory decree in favour of one of the plaintiffs---Appellate court (almost) maintained the decree and in favour of decree-holder/ plaintiff---Petitioners assailed of two courts below in revisional jurisdiction of High Court on the ground that exchange mutations of subsequent transferees in favour of each other were fake, collusive and ineffective because those mutations emanated from a former mutation in which, besides concerned correct Khasra number, another Khasra number was wrongly incorporated in revenue record---Petitioners also claimed possession over land holding of the disputed Khasra number---Validity---Main controversy between the parties was over possession of land comprising in disputed Khasra number---Petitioner had claimed that he transferred a part of holding but at the time of delivery of possession, he was handed over the entire holding---Petitioners had not produced any evidence to rebut those exchange mutations and to prove the same to be the result of fraud or collusion---Though mutations were not titled deeds but they carried presumption of correctness once incorporated in the revenue record---Both the contesting parties were owners to the extent of their respective share in disputed Khasra number, however, the controversy of possession of said Khasra numbers still remained---Admittedly the suit property was undivided joint property as evident from the revenue record and both the parties were recorded as co-owners therein---Patwari Halqa produced by both the parties in their respective suit had furnished contradictory statements qua possession of disputed Khasra number---Being under litigation between the parties and in consequence of an injunction suit property was lying barren in the revenue record, however, in disputed Khasra number petitioners were not in possession--- Respondent/plaintiff also failed to establish…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492