Dismissed

Mohan Singh v. Darshan Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Oct 2012CR/5871/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenging dismissal of temporary injunction applications, the Court rejected the petitioner's claim of exclusive possession over suit land. Finding joint revenue possession and co-sharers' rights, the revision petition was dismissed in limine without deciding merits of the suit.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed in limine.

Mohan Singh Vs Darshan Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 5871 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 5871 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : October 16, 2012

¶6

Mohan Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Darshan Singh .... Respondent

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶8

¶9

Present : Mr. R. K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶12

Plaintiff no.1 Mohan Singh, having failed to secure temporary injunction from both the courts below, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing orders of the courts below.

¶13

Suit was filed by the petitioner along with Pritam Singh as plaintiff no.2. However, Pritam Singh is stated to have withdrawn the suit after effecting compromise with defendant-respondent Darshan Singh.

¶14

Plaintiffs claimed to be in exclusive possession of 16 kanals

¶15

suit land comprising of Killa nos. 12 and 13 as co-sharers in a big joint Khewat no.214. Defendant claimed to have purchased 01 kanal 01 marla

¶16

C. R. No. 5871 of 2012

¶17

¶18

land in the Khewat, but his vendors were not in exclusive possession of any part of the suit land. The plaintiffs accordingly filed suit for permanent injunction. By moving separate application, plaintiffs claimed temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly therefrom and from raising any construction in the suit land.

¶19

Defendant-respondent resisted the suit and application for temporary injunction. It was pleaded that plaintiff no.2 had already effected compromise with the defendant and agreed to withdraw the suit. It was denied that plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the entire suit land. It was pleaded that different co-sharers have constructed their houses in parts of the suit land. Plaintiff no.1 and his brothers have also constructed houses over area of 5429 sq. ft. equal to one kanal. Similarly, defendant along with his brothers is owner of land measuring 01 kanal equivalent to 5429 sq. ft. i.e. 1/3rd share each. Plot of defendant is 451 feet away from the house of plaintiff no.1. Defendant, being co-sharer in the suit land, has right to construct house in the land in his possession in the same manner as plaintiff no.1 and his brothers have constructed their houses. Various other pleas were also raised.

¶20

Learned trial court, vide order dated 27.01.2012, dismissed the application of plaintiff for temporary injunction. Appeal against the said

¶21

C. R. No. 5871 of 2012

¶22

¶23

order preferred by plaintiff no.1 has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide order dated 23.08.2012. Feeling still aggrieved, plaintiff no.1 has filed this revision petition to assail aforesaid orders of both the courts below.

¶24

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner along with plaintiff no.2 Pritam Singh, who has since withdrawn the suit, is in exclusive possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanals. The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. There is not even an iota of material on record to even remotely substantiate the aforesaid contention. On the contrary, in the revenue record, all the co-sharers have been recorded to be in joint possession of the suit land. Consequently, the aforesaid contention rather stands negatived by entries in the revenue record. Defendant is also admittedly co-sharer in the joint land. The plaintiffs prima facie, having failed to depict their exclusive possession over the entire suit land, are not entitled to temporary injunction asked for.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the courts below so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

C. R. No. 5871 of 2012

¶27

¶28

The revision petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein before shall be

¶29

construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.

¶30

October 16, 2012

¶31

monika

¶32

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

Mohan Singh v. Darshan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh v. Darshan Singh

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

Hukam Singh Vs Maghar Singh and Ors.

Hukam Singh Vs Maghar Singh & Ors.

(O&M) Bhupinder Singh & Anor. Vs Prem Kumar Dhawan & Anor.

Ranno Vs Khurshaidan and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Naranjan Singh and Ors.

M/S Royal Solvex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Balwinder Singh and Ors.