The court disposed of a regular second appeal regarding a suit for injunction and possession between co-sharers pending partition motions, imposing a status quo on possession.
Modified judgment and decree to require parties to maintain status quo on possession until the suit property is partitioned by metes and bounds.
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.
RSA No.2883 of 2015 (O&M) {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2883 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision:19.12.2018
Salinder Singh and another
... Appellants
Vs.
Jagdish Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the caveator/respondent.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
caveator/respondent.
The present appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, the suit at the instance of appellant-plaintiffs claiming injunction of forcible interference and possession in the house described in the plaint, has been dismissed.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiffs submitted that concededly, the parties to the lis, are cosharers. The suit was dismissed on the premise that no injunction against the co-sharer in the absence of exclusive possession, can be granted.
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.20 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2883 of 2015 (O&M) {2}
Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendant submitted that similar suit was filed by the respondent-defendant against the appellant-plaintiffs but the same was also dismissed on the same ground.
On instructions/information from his client, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent apprised the Court that the parties have not yet initiated any partition proceedings.
In order to maintain equity and balance of inconvenience, I dispose of the present regular second appeal while modifying the judgment and decree to the extent that both the parties till the suit property is not partitioned by metes and bounds, shall maintain status quo qua possession as it exists today.
Accordingly, regular second appeal is disposed of.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| December 19, 2018 | |
| savita | |
| Whether Speaking/Reasoned | Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.20 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an injunction can be granted against a co-sharer in the absence of exclusive possession and uninitiated partition proceedings.
Salinder Singh
Jagdish Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
