The High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The court upheld lower findings that parties are co-sharers with no exclusive possession, noting partition is the efficacious remedy under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.
The appeal was dismissed. Pending applications were disposed off.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
125 RSA No.2385 of 2019 (O&M) Reserved on : 09.12.2024 Date of Decision: 17.12.2024
Joginder Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
Harbhajan Kaur & Ors.
....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-6369-C-2019
RSA-2385-2019
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2385 of 2019
2
the plaintiff-appellant from the suit land forcibly and illegally without any right. The plaintiff-appellant being in exclusive possession of the suit land as co-sharer had a right to retain possession till partition. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction. In their written statement the defendant-respondents raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, concealment of true and material facts, cause of action, verification, jurisdiction, non-joinder of necessary parties, court fee, etc. On merits it was submitted that the parties were co-sharers in the suit land and that the plaintiff-appellant was not in exclusive possession. Rather, the defendantrespondents were in possession of part of the suit land and had also sown their crop. It was also the stand taken that an application for correction of the khasra girdawari was pending before Assistant Collector Second Grade, Shahabad which was being contested by the plaintiff-appellant. The defendant-respondents were in possession since the date of purchase from their vendors and that the plaintiff-appellant was bent upon to take forcible possession thereof and that the defendant-respondents had never tried to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant forcibly and illegally. It was denied that plaintiff-appellant was in exclusive possession of the suit land as co-sharer. No replication was filed by the plaintiff-appellant.
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2385 of 2019
3
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2385 of 2019
4
solitary witness Gurmit Singh. The report of Local Commissioner DW-2 Sham Lal, retired Tehsildar, copy of which is Ex.D18 that defendants were in possession of 19.0 feet x 270 feet of southern side of khasra No.25/8/2 and 9/1/2 i.e. 19.5 marlas over which they had sown crop of potatoes is substantiated by cross-examination of plaintiff’s witness Gurdip Singh” . It was further held that “Since plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of suit land, in view of section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act plaintiff cannot seek permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his possession. Equally efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff is to seek partition of the suit land rather than an injunction restraining other coshares from interfering in his possession” . Learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant has not been able to convince this Court that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are erroneous in any manner. No cogent and reliable evidence has been pointed out to convince this Court to take a divergent view from the one taken by both the Courts. No other point was argued.
( ALKA SARIN ) 17.12.2024 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to a permanent injunction against defendants when co-sharers are in possession of parts of the land.
Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the plaintiff's lack of exclusive possession are supported by evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Joginder Singh
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
