Dismissed

Darshan Singh and Anr. v. Kaki

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2011CR/3414/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition seeking to quash lower court orders denying an interim injunction. The court held no prima facie case existed as the respondent denied selling her share of jointly owned land, and her absence did not constitute ouster.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' refusal to grant an ad interim injunction.

Darshan Singh and Anr. Vs Kaki — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.R. No. 3414 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.9.2011

¶3

Darshan Singh and another.

....... Petitioners.

Versus

Kaki.

...... Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J.

¶13

C.M. No.22071-CII of 2011

¶14

For the reasons given in the application for placing on

¶15

record Annexures P4 and P5, the same is allowed.

¶16

C.R.No.3414 of 2011

¶17

This is a petition brought by Darshan Singh and Raghbir

¶18

Singh under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 7.9.2009, Annexure P1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur and the order dated 21.2.2011, Annexure P2 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the application of the petitioners filed under Order

¶19

C.R.No.3414 of 2011 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. was dismissed.

¶22

This is a litigation between brother Avtar Singh and sister Kaki. With Avtar Singh, plaintiff, there is Darshan Singh, his son seeking an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. against Kaki. The bone of contention between the parties is the land measuring 64 kanals 15 marlas. Admittedly, Avtar Singh and Kaki had been co-sharers in equal shares in the land in question. Avtar Singh claims that Kaki sold her share in the land to him. The sale is claimed to be oral one of May,1994 which is said to have been preceded by an agreement of sale dated 27.2.1992. As has been claimed by the petitioners, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and learned Additional District Judge have both dismissed their application and the appeal declining the relief prayed for by them.

¶23

I have heard Shri Jatinder Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an admission of Kaki- respondent made in a proceeding before Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Talwandi Bhai. He has referred me in this regard to the order dated 6.6.2008 of Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Annexure P4 where possession of Darshan Singh was said to be admitted. In my opinion, there is no admission of Kaki in his favour as is evident from the order. Kaki was not even represented by any

¶25

C.R.No.3414 of 2011 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

one in the said case. It is the father of Darshan Singh, one of the petitioners before me, who had admitted the possession of Darshan Singh over the land in the aforesaid proceedings. The mere fact that Kaki is a resident of different village would only show that she is an absentee co-sharer and unless there is evidence of her ouster, she will be deemed to be in joint possession of the joint land with the other cosharers.

¶28

There is nothing to prove that the property has been sold by Kaki in favour of her brother or brother's son. In these circumstances, there appears no prima facie case in favour of Darshan Singh and Avtar Singh of having become exclusive owners of the land in question. Learned trial court as well as learned Additional District Judge were fully justified in declining the relief of ad interim injunction to the petitioners.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no patent illegality in the discretion exercised by learned courts below. The revision petition is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed.

¶30

September 14,2011 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) “SCM” JUDGE

Darshan Singh and Anr. v. Kaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Singh and Anr. v. Kaki

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

Kanti Vs Deepak and Anr.

Jasdev Singh and Anr. Vs Jagdev Singh and Anr.

Sapna Advertising and Anr. Vs Taurus International and Anr.

Gurcharan Singh Vs Kartari and Ors.

Mishri Devi & Anr. Vs Khoshya Motors Pvt. Ltd.

(O&M)Indian Oil Co-Operation Vs Union of India