Delhi High Court
Premwati vs Raghubans And Anr. on 6 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992RLR223
JUDGMENT Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) [ED. facts : Plaintiff bought suit land from one Sukhbir Saran by a registered sale deed on 19.12.68. Claiming that Defts. had trespassed into the land on 24.12.68, she sued them for possession and damages for use and occupation. Defts. in their w/s denied plaintiff to be owner contending that they and 13 others were owner of the land. Trial Court held that plaintiff had proved her ownership and that Defts. had failed to show that they were owners and decreed the suit. In appeal, it was held that plaintiff was only a co-owner and suit by her alone was not maintainable. She filed R.S.A.] After detailing above, it was held :
(2) It is to be noted that in the lower appellate court the respondents did not assert or urge against the findings of the learned trial court that the defendants are not the owners of the land in question.
(3) Before me in the second appeal, the only question which I need to decide, is whether a co-owner can maintain suit for possession against trespassers. In view of what is stated hereafter, other points are not being considered.
(4) Mr. Ishwar Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant, has referred to a Db decision of this Court, 1989 (2) RCR. 418=1989 (2) RCJ. 254 Mahavir Prashad v. Sukhdev Mongia In this judgment, R.N. Pyne, C.J. and D.P. Wadhwa, J. have held that a co-owner can maintain a suit against a trespasser without impleading other co-owners. The D.B. has relied upon judgments as Air 1970 Calcutta 113 (Currimbhoy & Co. v. L.A. Greet); (Ram Niranjan Dass v. Loknath Mandal); and (Ajmer Singh v. Shamsher Singh).
(5) In view of the judgment of the D.B. of this Court, which is binding upon me, the learned lower appellate court having decided the appeal on the basis of judgments of courts other than Delhi High Court, the impugned judgment that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, has to be set aside, as it is contrary to the said D.B. judgment of this Court.
(6) This case has been on board since 23.03.1992. None has appeared in this court on behalf of the respondents. Appeal allowed