Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jas Ram & Ors vs Pehlad & Ors on 2 July, 2013
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
C.R. No. 46 of 1991 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
C.R. No. 46 of 1991 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.07.2013
Jas Ram & Ors. ............ Petitioners
Vs.
Pehlad & Ors. .......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- None for the petitioners/plaintiffs
Mr. G.R.Vashist, Advocate, with
Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate,
for the defendants/respondents
Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).
The plaintiff is in revision under Article 227 assailing the order dated 11.8.1990 passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Bhiwani, whereby in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, temporary injunction was declined to the petitioners/plaintiff; further challenge is to the order dated 17.9.1990, passed by learned District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed.
The plaintiff Jas Ram alongwith his two sons filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain his brother Pehlad (defendant C.R. No. 46 of 1991 (O&M) -2- No.1) and his two sisters (defendants No.2 and 3) from interfering from the portion of 2/3rd share of the suit land measuring 115 Kanals 15 marlas in his exclusive possession.
The plaintiff No.1 Jas Ram claimed that apart from the joint share inherited from his natural father Kaalu, he had also inherited share from his uncle Jhabar(brother of Kaalu) being his adopted son. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff. It was asserted that plaintiff was owner in joint possession of 1/4th share only, whereas the three defendants were owners in joint possession of the remaining 3/4th share of the suit land. The revenue entries showing the exclusive possession of the plaintiff were fabricated and illegal and not binding on the rights of the defendants. In the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Bhiwani, keeping in view the fact that the agriculture land concededly was undivided, declined to grant ad interim injunction/temporary injunction vide order dated 11.8.1990. The learned District Judge, Bhiwani also dismissed the appeal in the light of the conceded fact that the suit land was joint in possession and no partition had taken place. It was further noticed that the proper course for the plaintiffs was to file suit for partition.
The present revision was admitted vide order dated 18.4.1991.
At the time of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
C.R. No. 46 of 1991 (O&M) -3-
Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants has argued that both the Courts below have taken the correct view by following the settled principle of law that co-sharer cannot seek injunction against the other co-sharer in the undivided joint suit land.
After hearing learned counsel for the respondents, I find that both the Courts below have rightly declined to grant temporary injunction in view of the aforesaid established fact that the suit land remain undivided between the co-sharers and the proper course for the plaintiffs was to seek partition rather than injunction.
Dismissed.
July 2, 2013 (Jaswant Singh) tripti Judge