Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 54

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

(a)    Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 54---Suit for perpetual injunction---Dispute---Documentary evidence--Wrong mutation entry subsequently rectified---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the suit-land was purchased by their father from defendants vide sale deed in the year 1965; which land was in their possession and they had constructed houses thereupon but defendants were flexing their muscles to interfere into their peaceful possession in the garb of wrong entries in the revenue record---Plea of the defendants was that the sale-deed-in-question had been tampered as instead of 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land, 4 kanals and 19 marlas had been entered---Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of plaintiffs---Validity---Record revealed that the plaintiffs placed on record an original sale-deed dated 17.04.1965 having been tendered/exhibited in evidence which, inter alia, revealed that total 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land had been purchased and relevant mutation (No. 210) was also attested but inadvertently the acreage of purchased land in the mutation was entered as 4 kanals and 9 marlas; however , in the recent settlement, the entries in the revenue record had been corrected and total purchased land, was entered as 4 kanals and 19 marlas---Defendants had not denied the sale deed dated 17.04.1965 but their stance was that the sale deed had been tampered by the defendants however, no tampering had been found rather controversy created between the parties was only due to the wrong entry in mutation No. 210 which had been rectified subsequently during the recent settlement but defendants in garb of said wrong entry in mutation No.210 tried to take possession of land which had already been sold by their predecessors to the father of plaintiffs---As the plaintiffs had proved their stance that vide sale deed dated 17.04.1965 their father purchased 4kanals and 19 marlas of land, they were in possession of the purchased land and defendants had no concern with the same land, thus the Courts below accurately decreed the suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents for perpetual injunction---No misreading, non-reading had been noticed in concurrent…