Dismissed

Raghunath and Anr. v. Narinder Pal Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Aug 2014CR/1428/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition filed by co-sharers against a judgment granting permanent injunction to a plaintiff who purchased land with specific dimensions. The court upheld the finding that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and that granting injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with no merit found, upholding the judgment dated 07.02.2011.

Raghunath and Anr. Vs Narinder Pal Kaur — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

205

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.1428 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: August 28, 2014

¶4

Raghunath and another

...Petitioners

Versus

Narinder Pal Kaur

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.B.S.Sewak, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioners Raghunath and Sushil Kumar have filed this revision petition against respondent Narinder Pal Kaur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment dated 07.02.2011 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and to uphold the order dated 07.06.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶15

The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffrespondent Narinder Pal Kaur has filed a suit for permanent injunction stating that she is owner in possession of the plot mentioned in the heading of the plaint, which was purchased by her from Sushma Rani for `5,20,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 21.04.2008. After

¶16

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CR No.1428 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

purchasing the land, the plaintiff came into exclusive possession of the plot and filled the foundation of the plot upto the level of two feet. It is further stated in the suit that defendants, have no concern or connection with the plot.

¶20

On the other hand, the case of the defendants-petitioners is that they purchased the plot from its previous owners namely Amrik Singh and Harnek Singh vide two separate sale deeds dated 19.04.2004. It is stated that previous owners delivered actual and physical possession of the plots purchased by them and since then, they are exclusive owners and in possession of the suit property. It is further alleged that plaintiff allegedly purchased suit property vide sale deed dated 21.04.2008 but in the said sale deed description mentioned by Sushma Rani is totally wrong, as alleged Pritam Singh, which is shown towards eastern and western sides in the said sale deed, does not exist there at the time of executing the alleged sale deed. Pritam Singh had already sold his entire share to Harnek Singh vide sale deed dated 26.06.1991 and Harnek Singh further sold the same to defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 19.04.2004.

¶21

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 07.06.2010, dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, which was filed by plaintiff, by holding that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff nor balance of convenience lies in her favour and there is no irreparable loss which shall be caused, if the relief is not granted. Learned Civil Judge also held that when both the parties are co-sharers and they have already

¶22

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CR No.1428 of 2011

¶24

-3-

¶25

commenced raising construction, in such a case, injunction cannot be allowed in favour of one co-sharer and against the other for restraining him to raise construction when he himself is doing so. An appeal was filed against this order by the plaintiff, which was allowed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 07.02.2011.

¶26

Notice of motion was issued and respondent appeared through her counsel and contested the petition.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶28

From the record, I find that learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib set aside the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib by holding that when the property falls under the municipal area and in the abadi area, therefore, revenue record is of no benefit in this case. Therefore, findings cannot be given on the basis of revenue record by holding the parties as co-sharers. It is further held that nature of the suit property is gair mumkin plot. Learned Addl. District Judge also held that Sushma Rani sold 7 marlas land vide sale deed dated 21.04.2008 in which dimensions have been mentioned. Sushma Rani had purchased the property from Pritam Singh vide sale deed dated 17.01.1991 by way of specific boundaries and dimensions. Those very boundaries and dimensions have been mentioned in the sale deed dated 21.04.2008 which were mentioned in the sale deed dated 17.01.1991. As per the defendants, Pritam Singh original owner no longer continued to be

¶29

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CR No.1428 of 2011

¶31

-4-

¶32

owner of surrounding area and sold property. They have purchased the property from Amrik Singh and Harnek Singh vide sale deeds dated 19.04.2004. Amrik Singh and Harnek Singh purchased the properties from Pritam Singh vide sale deed dated 26.06.1991 and Harnek Singh sold the same to defendant No.1.

¶33

Keeping in view the above position that Pritam Singh sold the plot by giving specific boundaries and dimensions to Sushma Rani and Sushma Rani sold the same to present plaintiff by giving same description of the property prima facie it looks that Sushma Rani is the owner in possession of the plot in question, whereas later on Pritam Singh sold the property to Amrik Singh and Harnek Singh and Harnek Singh sold the same to present defendants but these dimensions have not been mentioned in the sale deeds. Therefore, at this stage, prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience also lies in her favour and if temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, the findings of learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib are correct and as per law.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment passed by this Court in Sharanjit Singh vs. Raghu Nath, 2013 (3) PLR 91 . I have gone through this cited judgment and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in the present case, there is sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with specific dimensions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Skyline

¶35

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

CR No.1428 of 2011

¶37

-5-

¶38

Education Institute (India) Private Ltd. vs. S.L.Vaswani & Anr., 2010(3) CCC 445 (SC) , in which it is held that order based on objective consideration of material on record; appellate Court not to interfere because different view is possible. This cited judgment having distinguished facts will also not apply in the present case.

¶39

In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2011 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is correct and as per law and the same is upheld.

¶40

Therefore, finding no merit in the present revision petition,

¶41

the same is dismissed.

¶42

August 28, 2014 Vgulati

¶43

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶44

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Raghunath and Anr. v. Narinder Pal Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath and Anr. v. Narinder Pal Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiela Anand Vs Pranav Anand

Rupinder Kaur Vs Sarjiwan Kumar and Another

Harpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs Surjit Kaur and Anr.

Arun Goyal and Ors. Vs M/S Impression and Innovation etc.

Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs Sucha Singh and Anr.

Baldev Singh Rajput Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.