1. ' This revision is directed against the order of IInd Additional District Judge, Dadu, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the applicants and confirmed the injunction granted by the lower Court.
2. The facts relevant to the present revision application are as follows ' The respondents who are heirs of late Shahoo, instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the applicants. Declaration was sought in the suit to the effect that the respondents be declared the owners of Survey No, 1074/4, measuring 3'35 acres, situated in Deh Dharo Machhi, Taluka Johi. It was contended that the above piece of land was granted to their father late Shahoo in the year 1935 and that all the instalments of the land were paid by their late father. It was alleged that the suit land was given to the applicants on Muqata in the year 1953-54 but some 8 or 9 years prior to the filing of suit, the land was surrendered by them to the' respondents as the respondents demanded Rs, 200, per year as Muqata for the land which the applicant did not agree to pay. The respondent thus claimed to be in possession of the suit land.
3. Alongwith the suit the respondent filed an application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the applicants from interfering with the alleged possession of respondents over the suit land. The case of the applicant before the trial Court was that late Shahoo after allotment of the suit land was unable to pay the instalments of the land and thereafter under an arrangement arrived at between the applicants and late Shahoo the remaining instalments from 1945 onwards were paid by the applicants. It was also alleged that late Shahoo had surrendered all his rights in the suit land in favour of the applicants and the applicants were in cultivating possession of the land since the year 1940-41. The trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the respondents had succeeded in making out a prima facie case as to their title to the suit land and were also found to be in possession of the same on the basis of the entries in Khasra Girdawari Register, copy whereof was produced before the trial Court by the respondent which showed that the land was not under cultivation between the period from 1974-75 to 1979-80. The trial' Court accordingly found that the applicants were unable to prove their possession over the land and granted temporary injunction against the applicants restraining them from 'interfering with the alleged possession of the respondents over the suit land. The first appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court by taking into consideration the two other additional documents produced before bim namely, letter No, 97, dated 16-9-1980, written by Mukhtiarkar, Johi to the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, containing report about ownership and possession and letter No, HVC 308, dated 5-10-.980 written by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu to Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C" giving his report about the dispute between the parties. These two documents which were produced before the first appellate Court by the respondent were after the date of the order of first Court granting injunction and therefore were not of such relevance for determining the possession of parties on the date of institution of suit. Mr. Mohammad Ali Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicants, contended before me that both the Courts below only referred to the documents filed by the respondents before the trial Court while deciding the case before them and the documents filed before them by the applicants were totally ignored. Mr. Mohammad Jumman Memon, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contends that all the documents produced by the applicants before the trial Court were fully considered by the two Courts below. After going through the impugned orders, I find that the contention raised by Mr.Mohammad Ali Shaikh is not without force. I am further of the view that even the documents produced by the respondents C were not properly considered by the Courts below. The trial Court granted injunction in favour of respondents on the basis that the record of Khasra Girdawari Register, copy whereof was produced by the respondents before the trial Court shows that the land remained uncultivated from the, years 1974-75 to 1979-80 and therefore the contention of respondents that the possession of the land reverted back to them about 8/9 years prior to the institution of suit prima facie stood substantiated. It was further observed by the trial Court that neither the applicants nor the respondents produced any receipt of Dhal for the period from 1974 to 1980 and this was held to be an additional circumstance in favour of the respondents for grant of temporary injunction. Mr. Mohammad All Shaikh, pointed out to me from the R & P of the suit which was called for by me after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 8-9-1981, the original receipt showing payments of land revenue for the years 1976-77 and 1978 by the applicants. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court obviously did not consider this document while holding that the parties did not produce any receipt for payment of land revenue for the suit land from 1974 to 1980. The learned counsel also pointed out the certified copy of the Khasra Girdawari Register for the years 1971-80 which was filed before the trial Court by the applicants and according to which the name of Ghulam Mohammad who is one of the applicants, appears as Hari of the suit land. Even in the copy of Khasra Girdawari Register which was filed by the respondents before the trial Court the name of Ghulam Mohammad appeared as tenant of the land for the years 1974-75 to 1979-80. The Courts below did not consider any of these documents and completely ignored the same while considering the grant of injunction to respondents. Mr. Mohammad Jumman the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents having succeeded to establish their title to the land made out a strong prima facie case for grant of injunction. The contention of the learned counsel is not correct. The fact that the respondents, succeeded in making out a prima facie title to the land did not mean that they were also in possession of the suit land. For grant of injunction the respondents were required to establish their possession over the land and not only the title to land.
4. In view of the fact that the respondents had pleaded reversion of possession of suit land from the applicant some 8/9 years prior to the institution of suit which was denied by the applicants who claimed to be in physical possession of the same and the documents on record, namely, copies of Khasra Girdawari Register show the name of one of the applicants as tenant of land, the Courts below should have considered the prima facie case with regard to the alleged possession of the parties while dealing with the injunction application. The Courts below while granting injunction failed to consider material documents on record and also failed to consider the same in E the light of the rival contentions of the parties raised before them. I accordingly accept this revision, set aside the orders of the Courts below and remand the case back to Civil Judge for rehearing the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. In the light of the above observations. The trial Court will be free to consider all the documents produced in the case by, the parties and will not be influenced by any observation made in this Order. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.