The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a judgment granting temporary injunction. The court held there was no material proof of partition, thus defendants could not alienate land or build before partition.
Revision petition dismissed. No expression of opinion on merits of the suit.
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.
C.R. No.7050 of 2009(O & M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.7050 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision: 11.01.2010.
Gurmail Singh and others
.……Petitioners
Versus
Lal Singh and others
……Respondents
Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. S. S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
CM No.180-CII of 2010
Allowed as prayed for.
CM No.181-CII of 2010
The application is allowed and Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No.28095-CII of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 02.06.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.
Lal Singh respondent No.1 filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners and proforma respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Pritam Kaur since deceased) from
-2-
C.R. No.7050 of 2009(O & M)
alienating any specific portion of the suit land and from alienating more than their share out of the suit land and from raising construction on specific portion of the suit land till partition of the suit land, alleging that the suit land jointly owned by the parties has not yet been partitioned, but the defendants want to usurp more valuable portion of the suit land abutting highway. The plaintiff claimed temporary injunction to the same effect till disposal of the suit by moving application under Order 9 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The defendants pleaded that the suit land already stood partitioned among the co-sharers and they are in separate possession of their shares for the last more than 50 years and the parties had been alienating their properties as per their possession.
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala vide order dated 25.05.2005 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. However, appeal preferred by plaintiff-respondent No.1 against the said order has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned judgment dated 02.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) and thereby defendants have been injuncted from alienating any specific portion or more than their share out of the suit land and also from raising any construction over the suit land till decision of the suit.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
The whole case of the defendants is based on the plea that the suit land already stood partitioned. There is, however, no material whatsoever on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea of
-3-
C.R. No.7050 of 2009(O & M)
the defendants.
Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to copy of jamabandi (Annexure P-3) showing exclusive possession of different co-sharers over separate portions of the suit land. However, this circumstances would not show that the suit land has been partitioned among the co-sharers. On the other hand, even without partition, cosharers can remain in exclusive possession of parts of the suit land. Perusal of column of ownership in the aforesaid jamabandi reveals that the suit land is still joint. Consequently, the defendants have no right to alienate specific portion of the suit land or to raise any construction over any specific portion of the suit land or to alienate more than their share in the suit land. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned judgment of the appellate Court whereby temporary injunction has been granted against the defendants i.e petitioners and proforma respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Pritam Kaur since deceased.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
11.01.2010 A. Kaundal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit land stands partitioned among co-sharers based on exclusive possession.
Whether there is infirmity or illegality in granting temporary injunction against alleged usurpation.
Whether defendants have right to alienate specific portions or raise construction before partition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurmail Singh
Lal Singh
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
