JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 18 of 1998 against the opposite parties for permanent injunction restraining them from raising any construction by taking forcible possession over the property after evicting the plaintiffs forcibly from plot No. 142 measuring 0-6-8 and plot No. 143 measuring 0-1-12 described at the foot of the plaint in respect of the suit property described therein. In connection with the said suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary and ad interim injunction. By an order dated 21.3.1998, learned Civil Judge, (S.D.). Siddharth Nagar had rejected the application for temporary injunction. Misc. Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1998 was preferred by the plaintiff. By an order dated 2.5.1998, the said appeal was dismissed. It is this order which has since been challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Smt. Suneeta Tripathi, holding brief of Mr. Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that both the trial court as well as the appellate court though had come to a finding that so far as plot No. 143 is concerned, the plaintiff and defendant were Joint owners but simply on the basis of its finding in respect of plot No. 142 that the plaintiff was unable to show that he had any right in respect of the said property, the injunction application has been refused in respect of the entire property which included both the plot Nos. 142 and 143. According to Smt. Tripathi, both the Courts below had decided the issues in the suit itself on the basis of the affidavits though the persons affirming the affidavits were not subjected to cross-examination and therefore veracity of such affidavits could not be tested. She further contends that in effect in its order the learned lower appellate court had pre-determined the Issues which could be decided only on the basis of evidence entering into intricate question of law and fact involved in the determination of the case. According to her, it is only the prima facie case which is to be found out. It is not necessary that in order to obtain an injunction, full proof case is required to be made out. She had taken me through the Impugned orders and pointed out the portions on which she relied upon to support her contention.
3. Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand contends that the plaintiff had been unable to make out a prima facie case on the basis of the rights the plaintiff had claimed. There was nothing to show that the plaintiff had any lota of interest in respect of plot No. 142. It might be on the record to show that the plaintiff was a joint owner in respect of plot No. 143 but at the same time there was nothing to show that the plaintiffs were ever in possession in respect of plot No. 143. On the other hand, the defendant had been in possession on both the plots exclusively right before the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into operation. According to him by reason of the impact of the said Act, ownership of the defendant had conclusively matured to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no scope for the plaintiff either to claim any interest in respect of the said plot or possession in respect thereof. Since the plaintiff had been unable to show any interest or possession in respect of both the plots, both the Courts below were justified in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff had been unable to make out a prima facie case. He also contends that both the Courts have come to a concurrent finding of fact and the same being a finding of fact, sitting in revision this Court cannot enter into such finding of fact unless the facts are perverse. He had led me through the said two orders and had pointed out that there is no perversity in any of the impugned orders. He also contends that Smt. Tripathi has been unable to point out any perversity in any of the said orders. He further contends that the Courts below had not pre-determined the Issues. The entire endeavour in scanning the material was only for the purpose of finding out a prima facie case. There is nothing to indicate that the Courts below had predetermined any issue. Thus, the orders impugned according to him are justified and cannot be interfered with.
4. Mrs. Tripathi as well as Mr. Srivastava both have relied on few judgments in support of their respective submissions which will be dealt with at the appropriate stage.
5. I have heard Mrs. Tripathi and Mr. Srivastava at length and perused the impugned orders.
6. It appears that the right was claimed by the plaintiff on the basis that the property was acquired by the predecessor-in-interest of both the parties and that the plaintiff had relied on a document which is alleged to be a deed of sale. Admittedly, the said document was valued at Rs. 95 in respect of immovable property involved in the suit. The said document is also admittedly an unregistered one. Both the Courts had gone into the question as to the admissibility of the said document and its evidentiary value and had discussed in detail as to how far said document could have rendered assistance to the plaintiffs case on the basis of its evidentiary value. It had discussed in threadbare as to the characteristics of the said document and as to whether the said document can be accepted as a piece of evidence in support of the plaintiffs claim for the right over the disputed properly.
7. In fact such question can be gone into only on the basis of issues being framed in respect of title to the property. If such issues are raised relating to title of the property, in that event, the same can be gone into on the basis of the evidence. Though there might be decisions that such document may be required to be registered even though its value was below Rs. 100 relating to immoveable property despite Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act which prescribes such document as not being compulsorily registerable. relying on the definition of sale contained in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Such a question has a far reaching consequence and should not be under taken at the initial stage for the purpose of finding out a prima facie case. The document even though may not be admissible, yet there is scope to show that there was an agreement between the parties which was reduced in writing and agreement which is alleged to be in respect of the settlement already arrived at between the parties without creating a new right. Whether the said document creates a new right, is a question involved in the issue in the suit and can be gone into only at the time of determination of the issue. It is not necessary to enter into at such question at this stage which relate to pre-determination of the issue. The Court below had virtually decided the suit itself and had pre-determined the issues involved between the parties and had discussed the law on the subject in threadbare and had come to a finding that such document is not admissible in evidence.
8. Whether the said document is admissible in evidence or not, cannot be decided at the stage of finding out a prima facie case unless on the face of it, it appears that it is wholly inadmissible. In a case where triable issues have been raised, it is settled principle of law that in order to find out a prima facie case, it is not necessary that the Issue raised is sure to succeed. The only question that has to be deciphered in order to arrive at and find out a prima facie case is that whether triable issue has been raised which requires determination.
9. Before an injunction is granted, the question in dispute need not be examined or its decision anticipated. The real point is, not how these questions ought to be decided at the hearing of the case, but whether the nature and difficulty of the question is such that injunction should be granted until the time for deciding them should arrive. To make out a prima facie case for injunction, it is not required that the plaintiff should establish his title but it is enough if he can show that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the right alleged and the property in the meantime be preserved in status quo. Vide Brajendra v. Kashibai, AIR 1946 Pat 177 : Rameshwar v. Mohd. Ayyub, AIR 1950 Pat 527 : Israel v. Shamsher, ILR 41 Cal 436 : Ramkishghers v. Jamuna, AIR 1951 Pat 469 ; Mandir Nandi v. Gram Sabha, AIR 1973 HP 2.
10. Admittedly, in the present case, the Issue that has been raised appears to be a triable issue which requires determination and which cannot be thrown out in limine. On the basis, of it, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had no right, title or that the defendants had absolute title or that the plaintiff was unable to make out a prima facie case by not raising a fair question.
11. So far as the findings are concered, it cannot be treated as concurrent finding of fact since while deciding the injunction matter, it is not deciding any issue finally. Therefore, the findings of fact are of tentative in nature and cannot be treated as finding of fact. This Court while examining such question in revision, it examines not the decision itself but the decision making-process. Therefore, in the present case, this Court is not concerned with the finding of fact. It is primarily concerned with the process by which the conclusion as to the existence of a prima facie case has been arrived at. Therefore, this Court is neither believing nor disbelieving the finding that has been arrived at by the Courts below. However, while scrutinising it appears that the Courts below had not adopted a process for making decision which can be sustained, viz., for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion about existence of a prima facie case.
12. The very fact that was found by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs were co-sharers in respect of plot No. 143. itself shows that there was some iota of interest in support of the plaintiff's case. Mr. Srivastava had contended that the Commissioner report and Naib Tehsildar's report had pointed out that the defendants were in possession and the plaintiffs did not have any possession. Admittedly, the Commissioner's report was obtained under Order XXXIX. Rule 7. The scope and extent of the purpose of inspection is prescribed therein. The provision is not meant for ascertaining possession. These reports are in the said of the proceedings for the purpose of finding out a prima facie case but they are obtained for the purpose of ascertaining characteristics of the suit property, or its nature, construction or even measurement or boundaries of the property. Any finding with regard to the possession by this commission cannot be sacrosanct and be so treated by the Court. The Court has to come on its independent finding as to whether there is any possession or not. Then again, whether there is any possession or not. is a question which has to be determined on the basis of evidence. The report of the Commissioner were not subjected to scrutiny either by examining the Commissioner or Naib Tehsildar, who were never subjected to cross-examination. Thus, the finding cannot be conclusive for the purpose of finding a prima facie case at this stage.
13. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material on record, it seems that the plaintiff had been able to make out a prima facie case for the purpose of grant of injunction.
14. Mrs. Tripathi had relied on the decision in the case of Gangubai Babiya Chaudhary and others v. Sitaram Bhatchandra Sukhtankar and others, AIR 1983 SC 742, in support of her contention that even it is found that the plaintiff has title in respect of a portion of the property, it would be justified to restrain the defendant from raising any construction on the entire land since the situation might become irreversible by the time the dispute is decided- She also relied on the decision in the case of Ram Kalap v. IVth A.D.J., Gorakhpur, 1990 RD 15. in support of her contention that in such a case where question of raising construction is raised, status quo should a right order that should be passed. It appears that the said decision, learned single Judge had relied on the decision in the case of Harish Chander Verma v. Kayastha Pathshala Trust, JT 1988 (1) SC 625. In the said case, it was held that where a decree for permanent injunction has been sought, it would not be appropritate to permit the defendant to raise constructions subject to the condition that in the event of the decree being affirmed, the construction shall be pulled down. Apart from the convenlece the parties and equity arising in the facts of the case, a larger principle is involved in the matter. On the face of a decree for permanent injunction is it appropriate for the appellate court to allow it to be nullified before the appeal is disposed of? Therefore, the Court was of the view that answer has to be given in negative. Mrs. Tripathi further relied on the decision in the case of Ram Dulare Pandey v. IInd A.D.J., Allahabad and others, 1995 All CJ 551. In the said case, injunction was asked for in respect of a joint property. On the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was held that in such a case the trial court was bound to maintain status quo. The said decision had also relied on the decision in the case of Harish Chandra Verma (supra). Mrs. Tripathi had also relied on the ratio decided in the case of Harish Chander Verma (supra), which was a case on which the other two decisions cited above had relied on. These decisions lend support to the observation T have made earlier.
15. Mr. Srivastava, had relied on the decision in the case of Shiv Raj Singh and others v. Corita and others, 1991 RD 131, in order to contend that unless the plaintiff has possession in respect of the property and relief for delivery of possession or ejectment of the defendant is asked for, the suit for permament injunction cannot be maintained. If the suit Is not maintainable, in that even there is no scope for grant of Injunction temporary or ad interim. He relied on the observations made in paragraphs 8, 11 and 12 of the said judgment. In order to appreciate the contention, it would be convenient to quote the said paragraphs here-in-after :
"8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the relief for delivery of possession is not equally efficacious relief which he can obtain by any other usual mode of proceedings and suit for permanent injunction would be maintainable when the plaintiff is out of possession. On this question, there are ample authorities of this Court as well as of various other High Courts. The earliest case brought to my notice is Bhramar Lal v. Nand Lal, AIR 1915 Cal 23, The question is that case was whether a suit was maintainable by a plaintiff who was out of possession and who sought relief for injunction only. The Bench of the Calcutta High Court relying on certain English cases laid down..... when the plaintiff was out of possession unless there was some privity between the parties.
11. In view of these decision, it can be held that suit for ejectment or delivery of possession is equally efficacious remedy under clause (h) of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act. 1963 and where relief for delivery of possession or judgment, of defendant is not asked for or prayed for. mere relief for injunction which is a discretionary relief, cannot be granted. Such a suit for mere grant of permanent injunction is not maintainable. Both the Courts have rightly held that even if the plaintiff appellant is Bhumidhar of the disputed plot, the relief for injunction cannot be granted to him in the absence of any relief for delivery of possession.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants then argued that when the appellant was found Bhumidhar of the disputed plot the Court below ought to have awarded the relief by granting a decree for possession even though it had not been asked for in the plaint. In support of his argument the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. Mahabir Prasad Bhartiya, 1988 AWC 594. The argument has no merit. The relief which will be granted to plaintiff is dependent upon the course of action,shown in the plaint. Where the plaintiff has not pleaded that he is out of possession and it is the defendant who is in possession, the Court cannot grant relief of delivery of possession to the plaintiff. In fact in the plaint it has to be alleged when the plaintiff was dispossessed from the disputed land, who dispossessed him and from what part of land he was dispossessed. Unless there is a complete cause of action pleaded in the plaint the relief for delivery of possession cannot be granted to the plaintiff as such relief depended upon the course of action shown in the plaint. In the present case, the plaintiff appellant has not set out cause of action for relief of delivery of possession over the disputed land. Where complete cause of action has been set out in the plaint, the court may in appropriate case permit a plaintiff to amend relief set out in the plaint. The decision in the case of Food Corporation of India (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to his case. In this case, it was held that provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act are not exhaustive. In case any relief is claimed otherwise when a declaration as to any legal character or any right, to any properly, in that event the general provisions of Order VII, Rule 7 and Section 9 of the Code would apply. In other words, in case the relief falls outside the purview of Section 34 of the Act In that case the Courts have power to grant such a decree under the General provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in continuity of the requirement of the section. Since relief of delivery of possession could not have been granted without a complete cause of action being set out in the plaint, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court ought to have awarded the relief by granting a decree for possession, though it had not been asked for, must be rejected."
16. Having gone through the judgment and after having heard Mr. Srivastava, there appears to be a distinguishing feature so far as the facts and circumstances of the said case are concerned. The question of maintainability was gone into at the final stage of the suit, namely. In a case of decree against which the matter reached High Court in second appeal. The said decision in the case of Shiv Raj Singh [supra] was rendered while disposing of second appeal itself. Therefore, the question whether the suit is maintainable or not. can be gone into at the final stage. Whether the suit is maintainable or not, can be decided only after issues to that extent Is framed and decided on merits. In the present case, no such issue has been framed and at the same time as discussed above the suit does not appear to be not maintainable on the face of it as has been made out. The plaint definitely discloses a cause of action. My attention has not been drawn to any law which bars the said suit and nothing has been shown to this Court which excludes the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. Whether on the ground that the suit Is not maintainable on account of absence of possession of the plaintiff without such a relief for delivery of possession, is a relief for the purpose of deciding the issue. On the basis of the facts as discussed above, it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not have any possession. Then again. It is not the stage where such question could be gone into as to whether the plaintiff has been'ousted by the defendants altogether from plot No. 143 and thereby the joint owner defendant had acquired any exclusive right at least in respect of plot No. 143. Therefore, the ratio decided in the case of Shiv Raj Singh (supra) cannot be attracted at this stage.
17. In the facts and circumstances of the case as observed earlier, it appears that the plaintiff had been able to make out a prima facie case for the purpose of grant of injunction.
18. In that view of the matter, let there be an order of status quo as of date with regard to nature and character of the suit property as well as with regard to possession thereof till disposal of the suit. Since the suit is only for the purpose of grant of injunction, therefore. It is expected that the trial court should endeavour to decide the suit as early as possible. Both the counsel assure that their respective client will not seek unnecessary adjournments. All the findings recorded by the Courts below or in this order, are tentative in nature for the purpose of deciding temporary injunction only and shall in no way influence or affect the decision of the case on merits.
19. With the above observations, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs.