The facts of the case giving rise to this revision are that Daulat Khan, respondent No. 2, claimed to have purchased the property in dispute on the basis of a compromise decree prior to the vendor's obtaining proprietary rights in the property. The petitioners are alleged to have purchased the property in dispute from respondent No. 1 after the latter had obtained proprietary rights. The petitioners in their suit for declaration and perpetual injunction made an application for interim injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession, which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were not in possession. The learned Additional District Judge, however, partly accepted the appeal and issued stay order with regard to 5 kanals of land comprised in Killas Nos. 20 and 21. The petitioners have challenged both the orders and claiming possession over the total land pray for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession. The District Collector has issued a certificate in favour of the petitioners to the effect that sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1 had been executed on 30-12-1975. The sale in favour of the petitioners is dated 3-1-1976. For making a sale before getting proprietary rights it is necessary to get permission under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act. Since no such permission was taken by respondent No. 2, the petitioners, therefore, have an arguable case.
2. So far as possession is concerned, it is evident from the khasra girdawari that Zulfiqar Ali was a tenant over all the khasras except 48/14, 15 and 16 in 1975. So in 1976 his name was mentioned in Khasras Nos. 48/14, 15 and 16 and double diagonals are drawn against the column of possession and the remaining khasras meaning that the entry is the same as was in the previous harvest. As in 1975 Zulfiqar is mentioned in possession, therefore, it would mean that he was in possession in 1976.
Zulfiqar Ali filed an affidavit in favour of the petitioners to the effect that he was tenant and had delivered possession to them. In the khasra girdawari for 1977 the names of the petitioners are mentioned which show that the affidavit given by Zulfiqar Ali, previous tenant, is correct and that actually he had delivered possession to the petitioners. If Zulfiqar Ali had continued in possession it could be said that simply to help the petitioners he had given affidavit but had not parted with the physical possession on the spot. Since Zulfiqar Ali had been giving batai to the petitioners when he was in occupation and since after that the petitioners came in physical possession and they prima facie purchased the property from respondent No. 1 after the latter obtained proprietary rights, they have an arguable case.
3. Since the petitioners are in possession and prima facie appear to rightful purchasers, balance of convenience goes in their favour. Since the property in dispute is immovable property, it can be said that by the refusal of the stay order, an irreparable loss, which cannot be calculated in terms of money, may be suffered by them. The Courts below fell in error by finding that the petitioners had failed to show their possession over the property in dispute and for this reason the petitioners were refused the stay order.
4. For the reasons given above, I accept the revision and setting asid the orders of the Courts below, accept the stay application of the petitioners and restrain the respondents from interfering in their possession till the final decision of the case.