Dismissed

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. v. Satish Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2009CR/1295/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil revision under Article 227 challenging an order to maintain status quo regarding possession of joint agricultural land. The High Court upheld the lower court's direction that parties refrain from alienation or possession until partitioning is completed.

What did the court decide?

The revision-petition was dismissed, upholding the order to maintain status quo.

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. Vs Satish Kumar — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CR No. 1295 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1295 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.08.2009

¶5

1. Sandeep Kumar;

¶6

2. Harinder Kumar, both sons of Om Parkash, shop No. 3, Anaj Mandi, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

¶7

... Revision-Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Satish Kumar son of Mangal Ram, r/o near Old Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER

¶12

Present: Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶14

SHAM SUNDER, J.

¶15

¶16

This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the

¶17

Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 08.09.07, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, vide which, the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the applicant/plaintiff, was dismissed, and the judgement dated 22.09.08,

¶18

CR No. 1295 of 2009

¶19

¶20

rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide which it directed the parties to maintain status quo.

¶21

The plaintiff, had filed a suit for permanent injunction, on the ground, that he had purchased the plot, in dispute, vide sale deed dated 30.04.90, and came into exclusive possession thereof, in the capacity of owner. It was stated that the defendants/respondents, wanted to take forcible possession thereof. They were many a time, asked not to do so, but to no avail. On their final refusal, to desist from their nefarious designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed.

¶22

Alongwith the plaint, an application, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking ad-interim injunction, was filed.

¶23

The defendants/respondents, put in appearance, and filed written statement and reply, stating therein, that they had purchased 124 sq. yards of the property, and were in possession of the same. It was denied that the plaintiff/applicant, was in possession of the property, in question. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

¶24

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, the trial Court, dismissed the application for adinterim injunction.

¶25

Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff/applicant, wherein the parties, were directed to maintain status quo, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide

¶26

CR No. 1295 of 2009

¶27

¶28

judgement dated 22.09.08.

¶29

Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioners/defendants.

¶30

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

¶31

The Appellate Court, came to the conclusion, that the parties purchased the agricultural land, comprising khasra numbers, which was still joint. The said land, had not been partitioned, by the cosharers. Under these circumstances, even if, the plaintiff and the defendants, purchased the property, by specific khasra nos. and boundaries, it could not be said, that they were in exclusive possession of any portion of the joint property. In my considered opinion, the Appellate Court, was right, in directing the parties to maintain status quo, with regard to the possession and alienation of the suit property, in any manner, till the same was partitioned. The judgement, rendered by the Appellate Court, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is liable to be upheld.

¶32

For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is dismissed.

¶33

06.08.2009 Amodh

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. v. Satish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. v. Satish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Lal Vs Rakesh Kumar etc.

Gurmeet Kaur & Ors. Vs Rajinder Singh

Tek Chand Vs Secretary Punjab Houseing Dev. Board

K.B.Sharma Vs Keerti Karan Dharni and Ors.

Chand Ram and Another Vs Rajinder Parshad and Others

Chand Ram and Anr. Vs Rajinder Parshad and Ors.