Trial Court’s Power to Allow Harvesting of Perishable Crops Subject to Final Determination of Possession

The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction regarding agricultural land, claiming title via inheritance and R.S. Khatian No. 741/9.

The defendants claimed possession and title based on a different record, R.S. Khatian No. 741/36.

On January 20, 2024, the Trial Court restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession.

This was stayed by the First Appellate Court on July 16, 2024, and later set aside on July 16, 2025, with a direction to maintain status quo as to the nature and character of the land while remanding the injunction application.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC to harvest the paddy crop.

On December 6, 2025, the Trial Court allowed the plaintiffs to harvest the crop subject to the final judgment on title.

The defendants challenged this order via the present revision, claiming they had cultivated the land during the period the initial injunction was stayed.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a material irregularity by allowing the plaintiffs to harvest the crop while the question of possession remained undecided.

2. Whether the defendants provided sufficient prima facie evidence to prove they had cultivated the suit property during the subsistence of the stay order.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which grants inherent powers to the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process.

Principles governing the grant of interim relief and the "burden of proof" in establishing prima facie possession in agricultural disputes, noting that perishable assets like standing crops require immediate judicial intervention.

The Court observed that the Trial Court's order was balanced as it explicitly left the final determination of title and possession open for the injunction hearing.

The High Court rejected the defendants' argument that they cultivated the land, noting a lack of corroborative evidence. While the defendants produced seed purchase bills, they failed to provide photographs, tractor hiring bills, hand-tiller receipts, or documentation regarding the water source used for irrigation.

The Court further reasoned that the Appellate stay of the original injunction did not automatically authorize the defendants to enter and cultivate the land; it merely kept the restraint order in abeyance.

Additionally, the Khatian numbers cited by both parties were distinct, and the defendants had failed to file any prior police complaints or representations to revenue authorities (BL & LRO) regarding dispossession, weakening their claim of actual possession.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, finding the defendants failed to provide adequate proof of cultivation. The civil revisional application was dismissed, and all interim orders, including the appointment of the Special Officer, were vacated.