Dismissed

Satish Chander and Ors. v. Svitri Devi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Apr 2014RSA/2150/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a suit for injunction regarding joint property disputes. The High Court allowed the appeal's dismissal, finding the lower courts correctly held respondents are co-sharers in exclusive possession entitled to protection pending partition.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no specific relief details provided in the text.

Satish Chander and Ors. Vs Svitri Devi and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

�� 

¶2

��

¶3

Date of decision: 11^th April, 2014

¶4

Satish Chander and others

¶5

� Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Savitri Devi and others

¶8

� Respondents

¶9

�� !��"��"��

¶10

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

¶11

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellants.

¶14

Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents.

¶15

��"��"��#��

¶16

As per the averments made in the suit, property measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, is the joint ownership of Taraf Brahmins to the extent of 30 shares out of 90 shares and the appellants, being Brahmins of village Dohar, hold 6 ¼ shares therein in the entire Khewat No.18 as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 1984685. According to the appellants, there stood 140 trees (i.e. 60 Rajain trees, 15 Mango trees, 10 Sarinh trees, 15 Dhamman trees and 40 Eucalyptus trees) in the suit property. The appellants, who are joint owners of the land also hold joint interest in the trees standing therein, whereas the defendants were having no

¶17

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.21 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶18

¶19

��

¶20

title in the suit property except that their names were recorded as tenants at will in Khasra No.95 of the Jamabandi. According to the appellants, the defendants being tenants have neither any right to cut any tree nor to raise any type of construction or change user of the property except with the consent of the landlord. According to them, the defendants never cultivated the suit property and entries in the revenue record were false and frivolous. Since the defendant6 respondents threatened to cut and remove the trees, the matter was reported to the Police and then the defendants claimed to have purchased some share of some other co6sharers. However, according to the plaintiff6appellants, even if the defendants were co6sharers, they had no right to remove the trees from the joint land without partition and further had no right to raise any construction without their consent. Hence, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

¶21

Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the suit property was recorded in the revenue record as Taraf Brahmins. Taraf Chang and Taraf Rajputan is the joint property of the proprietors of the village as per their share and the defendants were in exclusive possession of their respective shares and were also having residential houses in the suit property. It was further averred that they have also planted various kind of trees in the land falling to their shares. The defendants belong to Rajput community which had 40 shares in the suit property recorded as Taraf Rajputan. It was further replied that no such type of trees are standing

¶22

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.21 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶23

¶24

��

¶25

in the suit land. It was further stated that the defendants were co6 sharers in the suit property and owners to the extent of their shares and were in exclusive possession and thus, have every right to use the property as they like. It was further replied that the plaintiffs have got no right to interfere in their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

¶26

After considering the evidence on record and the arguments raised, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 04.12.2008 held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed, and thus dismissed the suit.

¶27

Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.01.2010. While dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate Court observed as under:

¶28

�� !�� "��#�� $��#��%�� #�� &��'�� (��)��#�)��*��+,-�� ,.��,,-,��/.��/0-��1.��/��-�/�1.��23��

¶29

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.21 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶30

¶31

��

¶32

�� 4�� 5��3��5!�� #��5!/�� $�� 3�� #��0�� $�� #��$��#��#�� #�� #�� /++��2��$��

¶33

�6�� &�� 7+�8�(�� 9�:��#��+��9�5��1+� 2��#�� $��#��#�� 4��&��$�� ;�� #��$�� 3��(�� (�� )��%�� (��23��$��$�� 5��3��)��/�� 4�� $��3�� %��

¶34

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.21 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶35

¶36

��

¶37

��&��(�� (��$�� 3�� )��#��#��$�� 3�� #��$��#�� )��#�� $�� $�� )��(��<

¶38

Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this

¶39

appeal:

¶40

Whether both the Courts below have misread the evidence and thereby illegally decreed the suit against the plaintiff?

¶41

Whether a co6sharer can be granted injunction as the act of the other co6sharer is detrimental to the interest of the appellants?

¶42

Whether the relief of injunction can be denied merely on the basis that the defendants have purchased a very small piece of land out of the big chunk and have acquired all the rights over the suit property?

¶43

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.21 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶44

¶45

��

¶46

Whether the plaintiffs can seek injunction against the defendants from cutting of trees over the suit land as the plaintiffs have not planted the trees themselves?

¶47

Whether the Ld. Courts below have misread the evidence adduced by the appellant?

¶48

In support of his case, counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the courts below have misread the evidence on record, as the respondents have been shown as tenants at will in the revenue record and thus, neither they have any right to raise construction over the suit property nor to cut the trees standing therein.

¶49

However, learned counsel for the appellants could not refute the fact that in the Jamabandi for the year 1984685, the defendants have been shown to be the co6sharers in Taraf Rajputan in Column No.4. There is nothing on record to rebut the aforesaid revenue record and in view thereof, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the courts below to the effect that the defendant6 respondents are co6sharers along with the plaintiff6appellants in the suit property which admittedly has not been partitioned and is a joint Khata.

¶50

Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that a co6sharer cannot raise construction on a part of the joint land as the same amounts to ouster of the other co6 sharer from the use of that portion of the land and since the respondents have raised construction over a part of the joint property,

¶51

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.21 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶52

¶53

��

¶54

the appellants were entitled to the relief, as claimed. The argument raised is liable to be rejected simply on the ground that a co6sharer in exclusive possession of a specific portion of the joint Khata is entitled to protect his possession till partition takes place. In the instant case, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded that the respondents are in exclusive possession of the land purchased by them on which they have raised construction. In view thereof, they are entitled to protect their possession till partition takes place by metes and bounds and no fault can be found with the findings so recorded. In fact, there is nothing on record to suggest that the findings of the courts below to the effect that the respondents are in exclusive possession can be challenged.

¶55

In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this appeal as the substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise therein.

¶56

Dismissed.

¶57

��"��"�� 

¶58

�$%&'��#��(� ��

¶59

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.21 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Satish Chander and Ors. v. Svitri Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chander and Ors. v. Svitri Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Simran Gaba Vs Kaushalya Devi and Anr.

Surjit Singh and Ors. Vs Arvinder Kaur and Ors. for Self & Lrs of Sukhwinder Kaur

Suraj Bhan Vs Kidara

Dharam Pal Singh Alias Sukar & Ors. Vs Barik Mohammad

M/S Sadhu Ram Ice Factory & Anr. Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Gura Singh Vs Parminder Singh