This revision restores the trial court order directing status quo in a suit for permanent injunction and partition over joint land, rejecting the appeal for dismissal of such interim relief.
Revision allowed; impugned judgment of District Judge set aside; order of trial court restoring status quo restored.
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
C.R. No. 14 of 2013
Judgment Reserved on :8.5.2013 Date of decision: 13.5.2013
Suchet Singh .Petitioner
Vs.
Tej Singh Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner :
Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
Kuldip Singh, J
This revision is directed against the judgment dated 26.12.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Misc. Appeal No.14/2012, setting aside the order dated 23.7.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1,Mandi in CMA No. 36-VI/2012. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent regarding the land comprised in khasra No.458, measuring 0-3-2 bighas, situate in Mauja Panjethi/365. According to the petitioner the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties as well as other co-sharers, as per jamabandi
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment yes
…2…
2007-08. The khasra No.458 abuts National Highway and is valuable piece of land. The respondent is raising construction over khasra No.458 without getting the joint holding partitioned. In the suit, petitioner had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1,2 read with Section 151 CPC restraining the respondent from causing any interference and raising construction over khasra No.458, till the disposal of the suit.
…3…
has filed reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1,2 read with Section 151 CPC and contested the application. The respondent has filed replication and reiterated his stand taken in the plaint.
…4…
Highway. The respondent has started construction over khasra No.458 without the consent of the petitioner and without partioning the joint holding of the parties. The respondent has projected the case that other co-sharers including petitioner have constructed their buildings over joint holding and when respondent started his construction then petitioner has filed the suit to harass him. According to respondent, petitioner has no right in law or in equity to seek injunction against the respondent.
…5…
that stage the suit was filed on 13.3.2012. In the facts and circumstances, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The learned trial Court has properly considered the material on record when he directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to nature, possession and construction over the suit land. The learned District Judge has erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 23.7.2012 of the trial Court passed in CMA No.36VI/2012.
May 13, 2013 ( sks/gr)
( Kuldip Singh), Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in directing parties to maintain status quo pending suit for partition and injuction against construction on joint land.
Whether a co-sharer can raise construction on joint holding without consent of other co-sharers or without partition.
Whether the District Judge erred in setting aside the order restoring status quo and dismissing the appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suchet Singh
Tej Singh
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
