Dismissed

Balwinder Singh and Ors. v. Harjit Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2012CR/812/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application for permanent injunction over disputed property, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that since lower courts found no proof of exclusive possession by the plaintiffs, they rightly declined the injunction. The appeal against the dismissal of the revision petition was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Misc. application in Civil Revision No. 812 of 2012 stood allowed (to take documents), but the substantive revision petition was dismissed.

Balwinder Singh and Ors. Vs Harjit Kaur and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.812 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.M.No.5161-CII of 2012 and Civil Revision No.812 of 2012 Date of decision 23.03.2012.

¶5

Balwinder Singh and others

¶6

...... Petitioners.

¶7

versus

¶8

Harjit Kaur and others

¶9

.. .... Respondents.

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present : Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

K.C.PURI. J.

¶16

C.M.No.5161-CII of 2012

¶17

Civil Misc. application stands allowed. Documents are taken on record subject just exceptions.

¶18

MAIN CASE

¶19

Challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 8.10.2011 passed by S.Gurjant Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide which the appeal preferred against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by Shri Manoj Kumar, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar was dismissed.

¶20

Civil Revision No.812 of 2012

¶21

¶22

Briefly stated that the present plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from dispossessing the plaintiffs over the suit property. It is alleged that they have purchased 65½ kanal of land vide three different sale deeds executed in their favour. The defendants have no concern with the suit property. The sale deeds in favour of the defendants is after the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property.

¶23

The suit was contested by the defendants and it is pleaded that defendants No.2 and 3 are owners in possession of the suit property and have purchased through the sale deed as detailed in the written statement.

¶24

Along with the suit, an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, which was resisted by the defendants.

¶25

The learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides and going through the records dismissed the application.

¶26

Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 4.9.2009 dismissing the application for injunction, the plaintiffs filed the appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by S.Gurjant Singh, Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 8.10.2011. The plaintiffs/revisionist has challenged both the orders dated 4.9.2009 passed by Shri Manoj Kumar, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar and order dated 8.10.2011 passed by S.Gurjant Singh, Additional District Judge, Jalandhar by way of the present revision petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the arguments

¶28

Civil Revision No.812 of 2012

¶29

¶30

made before both the Courts below. It is submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property. Their sale deed is earlier in time and than that the sale deed in favour of the defendants. So, both the Courts below should have preferred the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs rather than the sale deeds in favour of the defendants. It is further contended that vendor of the defendants has lost the litigation with the plaintiffs. So, both the Courts below have committed error.

¶31

I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. 9. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit property. It has been observed by both the Courts below that by executing the sale deed both plaintiffs and defendants have become cosharers. It has also been observed by both the Courts below that present plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction against Ashwani Kumar etc. regarding the suit property and in that case they sought injunction which was declined. So, when there is finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their exclusive possession over the suit property in those circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly declined the injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners. The scope of revision in the light of concurrent finding of both the Courts below is limited. It is settled law that a cosharer can get injunction against other cosharer only if he or she is in exclusive possession. Since, the petitioners have failed to prove their exclusive possession, so in these circumstances, I

¶32

Civil Revision No.812 of 2012

¶33

¶34

see no illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below.

¶35

Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

¶36

However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court or by the First Appellate Court shall not construe to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall independently decide the factum of possession.

¶37

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

¶38

( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE

¶39

March 23 , 2012 sv

Balwinder Singh and Ors. v. Harjit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Singh and Ors. v. Harjit Kaur and Ors.

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

Randhir Kumar Alias Randhir Singh Vs Ram Avtar and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs Manju Chalana

State Bank of India Vs Vivek Chalana

(O&M) Ram Chander Vs Bhoop Singh etc.

Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Kanhiya Lal Yadav

Hira Devi & Others Vs Kuldeep Sharma & Others