Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh & Another vs Chand Kaur & Others on 6 August, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.4647 OF 2013
DATE OF DECISION : 6th AUGUST 2013
Randhir Singh & another
.... Petitioners
Versus
Chand Kaur & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 02.07.2013 Annexure P-5 passed by the lower appellate Court.
Plaintiffs have alleged that they are in actual physical cultivating possession of the suit land along with defendant no.5. There is also a tubewell with electricity connection in khasra no.6//12 in the name of plaintiffs' father Ajmer Singh. Both plaintiffs have also installed one tubewell each in khasra No.6//2 and 6//26 respectively. Plaintiffs and defendant no.5 are sons of Ajmer Singh. Defendants no.3 and 4 are sons of defendant no.5. Defendant no.2 is son of Labh Singh deceased son of Ajmer Singh. Chand Kaur is widow of brother of Ajmer Singh.
Plaintiffs' case is that in oral family settlement dated 25.05.2010 entered into between plaintiffs and defendant no.1, plaintiffs
-
2- CR No.4647 of 2013 were admitted to be owners of the suit property by defendant no.1. Plaintiffs in the suit have challenged gift deed dated 23.02.2011 regarding share in the suit land executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 to 4. Plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction restraining defendants no.2 to 4 from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and from dispossessing them therefrom forcibly and illegally. Plaintiffs also claimed temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit by moving separate application.
Defendants resisted the suit and the application for temporary injunction and pleaded that defendants no.2 and 5 are cosharers in the suit land in their own right whereas defendants no.2 to 4 have also got share of defendant no.1, pursuant to the impugned gift deed. Alleged family settlement pleaded by the plaintiffs was controverted. Various other pleas wee also raised.
Learned trial Court vide order Annexure P-4 allowed plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and restrained defendants no.2 to 4 from interfering in joint possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and from restraining the plaintiffs from using the tubewell in question during pendency of the suit. However, appeal against the said order preferred by defendants no.2 to 4 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 02.07.2013 Annexure P-5, which is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the plaintiffs.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
-
3- CR No.4647 of 2013 Counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of family settlement with defendant no.1, petitioners are owners in possession of the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage. There is nothing on record to depict the alleged family settlement between petitioners and defendant-respondent no.1. On the contrary, defendant no.1 has also defended the gift deed executed by her in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 and has denied the alleged family settlement with the plaintiffs.
In addition to the aforesaid, defendants no.2 and 5 are cosharers in the suit land in their own right.
In the aforesaid circumstances, temporary injunction has been rightly declined to the plaintiffs by the lower Appellate Court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the appellate Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.
6th August, 2013 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj'
JUDGE
Raj Kumar
2013.08.07 18:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh