Appeal against a suit for permanent injunction restraining a co-owner from forcible possession. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding no substantial question of law arose as possession of a co-owner benefits all and the lower courts decided purely on facts.
The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
R.S.A. No. 34 of 2000 Date of decision: 07.12.2010.
Vedwati & Others …Appellants.
Versus Balraj & Others …Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the appellants: Mr. Naresh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.P. Singh, Advocate.
Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)
The respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants (Sukh Dev Singh) from taking forcible possession of the suit property by ousting them from the suit land. It was also pleaded that the defendant be restrained from selling, cutting the trees and raising any construction till partition takes place. The main ground was that the land is joint and Shri Sukh Dev being a strong person was trying to raise construction and forcibly evict the co-owners of the property.
1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
by the parties but claimed that he is in exclusive possession of the suit land by way of private arrangement. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the land is joint and therefore Sukh Dev was restrained from taking forcible exclusive possession of the suit property and was also restrained from cutting and selling the trees from the suit land.
“After hearing the learned counsel on both side, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
Respondents No.1,3 to 5 are duly represented by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel. Notice to respondent No.2-Roop Chand.
Needless to point out that the admission of this appeal will not in any way prejudice the rights of the parties to seek appropriate proceedings before competent authority for partition if otherwise permissible under law about the subject matter in issue and the authority shall decide those proceedings on their merits in accordance with law.”
by which he was put in exclusive possession of the property. Even assuming that he was put in exclusive possession, there is nothing on record to show that the joint owners gave up their right in the property. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants admitted that the property is jointly owned by all the parties. Possession of one co-owner under law is for the benefit of all the co-owners. Therefore, in my considered view both the Courts have given a decision purely on facts which calls for no interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(Deepak Gupta) Judge
December, 7, 2010 (guleria)
2 issues framed by the court
Can a permanent injunction suit regarding joint property be entertained without ascertaining parties' rights via partition proceedings?
Can a Nakal Khatauni prepared by a public official be considered without formal proof for determining possession?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vedwati & Others
Balraj & Others
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
