Suresh Kumar & Anr vs Yogesh Kumar & Ors on 10 February, 2015
Thus, the decisions in Mehar Chand Das's case (supra) and in
Kartar Kaur and another's case (supra), relied upon by counsel for the
petitioners, are not applicable to this case rather the decision in Gajara
Vishnu Gosavi's case (supra), relied upon by counsel for respondent no.1,
is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because as
per decision of this Court in the case of Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ
204, every co-sharer is an owner of every inch of joint land which has
further been approved by Five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of
Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh and others, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 002
(P&H) (FB). Thus, even if defendant no.5 had purchased the suit property,
he would also have to file a suit for partition in order to take possession as
in a joint property, specific portion cannot be sold to the detriment of the
interest of the other co-sharers, therefore, respondent no.1 has rightly filed
the suit for possession on the basis of partition by metes and bounds of the
suit property for segregating his share and was not required to ask for
VINOD KUMAR
2015.02.12 16:32
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR No.4711 of 2011 (O&M) [6]
****
possession in the later suit filed for declaration to challenge the sale deeds
in which he was not associated.