Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritpal Singh And Ors vs Hari Singh And Ors on 4 October, 2016
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
CR No.105 of 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.105 of 2016
Date of Decision: 04.10.2016
Pritpal Singh and others
......Petitioners
Vs
Hari Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. Petitioners have assailed order dated 04.07.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Amloh and order dated 18.09.2015 passed by District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. [2]. Brief facts as gathered from the record are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Hari Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendant/petitioners and proforma respondents from interfering in the peaceful use of electric motor installed in the land compromise in Rect. No.21//4 (7-17) in the revenue estate of village Ladpur, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib for irrigation of joint land as per share 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2016 02:24:16 ::: CR No.105 of 2016 2 of the land. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 alleged that previously Bhagat Singh and Bhag Singh were in joint use of electric connection. They got the electric motor installed from their joint funds. The connection could be issued only in the name of one person, therefore, the same was applied in the name of Bhag Singh. The Department issued electric motor connection in the name of Bhag Singh, although Bhag Singh and Bhagat Singh were in joint use of electric motor connection. For the purposes of irrigating their joint land, the electric motor was installed in the joint khewat and the same was only source of irrigation to the joint land. Bhag Singh died and his land was devolved upon his sons Jagir Singh and Gurdial Singh (defendant No.4). Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of Jagir Singh. Defendant No.5 is the son of defendant No.4. All the defendants stepped into the shoes of Bhag Singh. Bhagat Singh also expired and his land devolved upon his heirs Pritam Singh etc. [3]. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 alleged that he had purchased 4 Kanals 13 Marlas 3 Sarsahis from Pritam Singh son of Bhagat Singh along with share in electric motor vide two different sale deeds i.e. sale deed dated 29.06.2011 in respect of land measuring 2 Kanals 13 Marlas 3 Sarsahis and sale deed dated 27.01.2012 in respect of 2 Kanals of land so purchased by him. After the purchase of the land by the plaintiff, he was irrigating 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2016 02:24:17 ::: CR No.105 of 2016 3 the land through electric motor to the extent of his share. There was a Khal for the purposes of irrigation from the place of installation of electric meter towards the land of the plaintiff. The defendants caused hindrance in the irrigation by the plaintiff and tried to demolish the Khal. Dispute arose between the parties. With this background, the suit in question was filed. [4]. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants.
[5]. Trial Court vide order dated 04.07.2014 accepted the prayer for ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants were restrained from causing hindrance in joint use of electric motor connection till final disposal of the suit. [6]. Defendants filed misc. appeal before the District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, who affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on the premise that electric motor was proved to be purchased by Bhag Singh from his own funds vide order dated 18.09.2015.
[7]. Evidently, Bhag Singh and Bhagat Singh were co-sharers in the joint land and use of electric motor was joint venture for the purposes of irrigating their respective share. Subsequently, Pritam Singh son of Bhagat Singh sold his share. The pleaded case of the plaintiff was that the electric motor was 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2016 02:24:17 ::: CR No.105 of 2016 4 installed jointly by Bhag Singh and Bhagat Singh for the purposes of irrigation of their joint land. Pritam Singh sold the land along with share in electric motor vide sale deed dated 27.01.2012. Perusal of the said sale deed would show that positive recital was made in the sale deed with the land in question sold by Pritam Singh in favour of plaintiff with a recital that all rights and shares in electric motor of 5 H.P., motor connection, security, bore, kotha, khal, water channel, passage, trees etc. were sold by Pritam Singh in favour of plaintiff for consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-.
[8]. It is common practice in rural agricultural families that a tubewell connection is applied in the name of one of the co-sharer in joint property because the record of the Department could be prepared only in the name of one person out of the joint properties. The connection was accordingly applied in the name of Bhag Singh and all co-sharers were the beneficiaries of that connection. At the time of sale, Pritam Singh has specifically endorsed the factum of jointness of the electric connection and all rights appurtenant to the land viz.-a-viz. electric motor, electric connection, security, bore, kotha, khal, water channel, passage, trees etc. were made the subject matter of the sale deed. Evidently, the properties have not been partitioned between the parties/co-sharers. It is also a settled 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2016 02:24:17 ::: CR No.105 of 2016 5 principle of law that possession of one of the co-sharer in joint land would be deemed to be possession on behalf of the co- sharers, even if the co-sharer is out of possession, he would deemed to be in possession.
[9]. In the instant case the positive pleadings on record are to the effect that Bhag Singh and Bhagat Singh were jointly cultivating their respective share by use of electric motor in question. There was no partition claimed by the original co- sharers during their life time. The existence of electric connection in the name of one of the party cannot be taken to be an instance of exclusive use of electric connection, particularly when the same is installed in the joint land of the parties. The name of one of the co-sharer has to be entered in the record of the Department while sanctioning the electric connection. Such an activity is only for setting the record right. Such an interpretation does not give any exclusive right to the person in whose name electric connection is installed in the joint property. At this initial stage, however the same would be a subject matter of evidence to be led by both the parties at trial. [10]. At the stage of grant of ad interim injunction only three principles are required to be taken note of i.e. existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2016 02:24:17 ::: CR No.105 of 2016 6 the event of non-grant of temporary injunction. In my considered opinion all the three ingredients exist in favour of the plaintiff. Both the Courts have rightly appreciated the prima facie merit of the case at this stage. The orders passed by the Courts below cannot be found to be faulted with any error of jurisdiction. [11]. In view of above, this revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
October 04, 2016 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2016 02:24:17 :::