In a second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal against a suit decree granting exclusive possession and restraint against a brother, citing that admitting exclusive possession barred the injunction argument only till partition.
Second appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
YOGESH SHARMA 2019.01.04 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1
RSA-1309-2017 (O&M)
134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1309-2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.12.2018
Paramjit Singh
... Appellant
Versus
Karam Singh and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Ms. Rajni Maurya, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL, J.
CM-3126 -C-2017
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 108 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA-1309-2017
The present regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs claiming exclusive possession in the suit property as well as restraint order against the defendant, who is none-else, but brother, has been decreed and affirmed in appeal.
The plaintiffs instituted the suit on the premise that grandfather of the plaintiff No.1, was the owner and in possession of the suit property since long. Owing to the ill-health, he could not maintain the property and handed over to his son plaintiff No.2, vide agreement to sell dated
YOGESH SHARMA 2019.01.04 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2
RSA-1309-2017 (O&M)
13.09.2012. Plaintiff No.2 also obtained the water connection in his name.
The defendant disputed the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs and stated the agreement to sell to be forged and fabricated document.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parties to the lis are co-sharers and in the absence of partition, no injunction can be granted against a co-sharer.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable as it has been borne out from the judgments and decrees that the defendant in cross-examination admitted the exclusive possession of the respondentsplaintiffs. In view of such situation, the principles culled out by the Full Bench of this Court rendered in ''Bhartu V/s Ram Sarup'', 1981 PLJ 204, had rightly been applied. The injunction is only till the party seeks partition.
There is no bar either of the parties to initiate the partition proceedings to claim the separate possession by metes and bounds.
In this view of the matter, there cannot be any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination.
Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an injunction can be granted against a co-sharer in the absence of partition?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact below are illegal or show perversity?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhartu V/s Ram SarupApplied¶26
''Bhartu V/s Ram Sarup'', 1981 PLJ 204,
PARAMJIT SINGH
KARAM SINGH
ANOTHER
AMIT RAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
