Disposed

Jasvir Singh and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2009CR/299/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that co-sharers cannot forcibly raise boundary walls or construction on specific parts of jointly owned land pending disposal. However, recognizing the petitioners' right as users of purchased property, the trial court was directed to decide the case within one year and dispose of the matter quickly.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to decide the case within one year and dispose of the matter by giving short dates.

Jasvir Singh and Ors. Vs Saroj and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R.No.299 of 2008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.R.No.299 of 2008. Decided on: November 12, 2009.

¶4

Jasvir Singh and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Smt.Saroj and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

Whether to be referred to the Reporter?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

PRESENT Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶16

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners claim that the defendants-petitioners being purchasers of 25 kanals 6 marlas of land out of total 195 kanals of land co-owned with others have a right to raise construction on the portion which is in actual physical possession of the petitioners. Courts below have restrained the defendants-petitioners from alienating the suit land by specific killa numbers and to raise any construction over specific killa number of

¶18

. . . 1

¶19

C.R.No.299 of 2008

¶20

from changing the nature of the land till disposal of the case.

¶21

Since the petitioners are only co-sharers in a joint land, they cannot be permitted to raise the boundary wall around particular khasra numbers and to raise construction.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners has contended that all the heirs of Khiali Ram, the vendor of the property to the petitioners, have got no objection to the construction being raised and a suit has been got filed from Saroj wife of one of the sons of deceased Khiali Ram, after all the LRs have sold 29 kanals 6 marlas of land to the petitioners.

¶23

After going through the orders passed by the Courts below, I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders of interim injunction. However, taking into consideration the rights of the defendants-petitioners being co-sharers desirous of user of the property purchased by them, it is ordered that the trial Court will decide the case within a period of one year after the receipt of copy of the order and will dispose of the matter by giving short dates.

¶24

(M.M.S.BEDI)

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

November 12, 2009. rka

¶27

. . . 2

Jasvir Singh and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasvir Singh and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birawan Bai and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pb. Small. Indust. and Export. Corp. Ltd. Chd. Vs Opbk Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Baldev Chand etc. Vs Satnam Singh etc.

Sukhwinder Vs Gomti Devi

Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Mewa Singh