1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This petition arises out of a suit riled by petitioner against respondents for declaration that "he is the sole Khatedar of the suit-land and the respondents have no right to deny the same or for that matter get their names entered" as such i.e. As Khatedar of the land. It was further prayed that the defendants be permanently restrained from claiming any such right over the land in question.
2. In defence, respondents pleaded that they are owners in possession of the suit-land, in that, they have paid the price of the land and the same was accepted from them by the Revenue Authorities as owners of the property.
3. Learned trial Judge dismissed the suit as he reached the conclusion that "the defendants are in possession of the land in question since more than 16 years and the plaintiff has never interfered in their peaceful possession" and further that "plaintiff is out of possession of the suit property and the title of the same has also been transferred in the name of defendants by attestation of mutation in favour of the defendants" and that "defendants are in cultivating possession of the property since more than 16 years and their names are entered as Khatedar in Jamabandi which was in the knowledge of the plaintiff and further the relief to possession was available to him which he could have asked by way of seeking consequential relief".
4. Petitioner challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the District Judge but his appeal was dismissed and a revision application filed by the petitioner in the High Court also met with the same fate. It is in these circumstances that' petitioner filed this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
5. We find that the High Court has considered at length all the points that were raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition. According to the judgment of the learned Judge in the High Court the respondents have been shown as tenants in the revenue record of suit-land since 1970 and are in occupation since then and that the Colonization Authorities have even received instalments of purchase money from respondents and have allowed them transfer of suit property.
6. Moreover even according to petitioner's own showing he is not in possession of the suit-land since more than 15 years therefore obviously without claiming consequential relief suit in the present form was not maintainable under the provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case no exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court. The petition is therefore dismissed.