Dismissed¶35

Nihal Singh v. Naveen Yadav

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Alka Sarin, J.) – RSA-2072-2019 (O&M), reserved 16.12.2024, pronounced 07.01.2025 – Regular Second Appeal – Permanent injunction

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2025RSA/2072/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-2072-2019 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Alka Sarin J.; pronounced 07.01.2025; regular second appeal dismissed; permanent injunction refused to co-sharer without proved exclusive possession; partition suit held to be the proper remedy for co-owner; no substantial question of law; Nihal Singh v. Naveen Yadav; sale deeds dated 08.05.2000 and 19.10.2012 (7/51 share via Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas); decree dated 14.09.1995 in suit no.8/95.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff-appellant failed to establish his exclusive ownership and exclusive possession over the suit land; both Courts found the appellant and the respondent to be co-sharers. ¶29

Nihal Singh Vs Naveen Yadav — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching any portion of the land of the plaint or blocking the rasta shown in red colour (Trial Court issue no. 1, carried through to this second appeal). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The plaintiff-appellant failed to establish his exclusive ownership and exclusive possession over the suit land; both Courts found the appellant and the respondent to be co-sharers.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

No revenue documents were placed on record in evidence showing that the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent are in possession of specific portions of the suit land; in the absence of evidence of exclusive possession, no injunction can be granted in the appellant's favour.

¶29

Key takeaways

Even if a co-sharer is in possession of some portion of the suit land held jointly with other co-owners, his remedy is to file a suit for partition, not to seek injunction.ratio¶34
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case; accordingly the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Alka Sarin, J.) — RSA-2072-2019 (O&M), reserved 16.12.2024, pronounced 07.01.2025 — Regular Second Appeal — Permanent injunction — Co-sharers. Plaintiff-appellant Nihal Singh, claiming title to the suit land and Rasta under decree dated 14.09.1995 in suit no.8/95 “Nihal vs. Munshi & Ors.”, sought to restrain defendant-respondent Naveen Yadav (who acquired a 7/51 share through successive sale deeds of 08.05.2000 and 19.10.2012 via Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas) from encroaching on the suit land or blocking the Rasta. Trial Court (decree 17.04.2015) and First Appellate Court (decree 04.10.2018) dismissed the suit/appeal. Held: parties are co-sharers; appellant failed to establish exclusive ownership or possession; no revenue documents evidenced possession of specific portions; injunction cannot issue to a co-sharer, whose remedy is a suit for partition; no substantial question of law arises — appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed off.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA-2072-2019 (O&M) Reserved on : 16.12.2024 Pronounced on : 07.01.2025

Nihal Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Naveen Yadav

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

ALKA SARIN, J.

¶11

The present appeal is by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgements and decrees dated 17.04.2015 and 04.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissing his suit.

¶12

Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondent from encroaching any portion of the suit land or blocking the Rasta. It was averred that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner in possession of the suit land having received the same in a court decree dated 14.09.1995 in suit no.8/95 titled as “Nihal vs. Munshi & Ors.” and since then the plaintiff-appellant had been in possession of the suit land as owner along with the Rasta. As per the plaintiff-appellant the defendant-respondent had purchased 7/51 share from one Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas vide sale deed dated 19.10.2012 to whom the said share was sold by the plaintiff-appellant on 08.05.2000. According to the plaintiff-appellant the defendant-respondent had threatened to encroach

¶13

upon the portion of the suit land of the plaintiff-appellant and was also trying

¶14

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.07 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

RSA-2072-2019

¶16

-2-

¶17

to encroach and block the Rasta which Rasta was shown in the decree passed in suit no.8/95 titled as “Nihal vs. Munshi & Ors.” though the defendantrespondent had no right, title or interest. Hence, the suit. In the written statement the defendant-respondent raised preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits it was stated that the plaintiff-appellant had himself sold the land to Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas vide sale deed dated 08.05.2000 and had handed over physical possession of the same and that thereafter the said Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas had sold the land in favour of the defendant-respondent vide sale deed dated 19.10.2012 and had handed over the possession to the defendantrespondent. It was submitted that in both the sale deeds it had been mentioned that the possession towards the land of Ghisa Ram had been handed over, first to Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas and then to the defendantrespondent. It was claimed that the defendant-respondent was in peaceful possession of the suit land and had also installed a submersible pump on it.

¶18

The Trial Court framed the following issues :

¶19

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching any portion of land of the plaint or blocking the rasta shown in red colour as described in para no. 1 of the plaint ? OPP

¶20

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

¶21

Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

¶22

Relief.

¶23

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.07 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

RSA-2072-2019

¶25

-3-

¶26

Vide judgement and decree dated 17.04.2015 the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. His appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 04.10.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that both the Courts have erred in dismissing his suit. It is urged that the plaintiffappellant had become owner of the suit land under decree passed in suit no.8/95 titled as “Nihal vs. Munshi & Ors.”. Though the plaintiff-appellant had sold a part to Ram Niwas who thereafter sold the same part to the defendant-respondent, the plaintiff-appellant was owner in possession of the portion which the defendant-respondent was attempting to encroach. It was submitted that in fact the suit should have been decreed and the possession of the plaintiff-appellant protected.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

¶29

In the present case both the Courts have found that the plaintiffappellant and the defendant-respondent are co-sharers. The plaintiffappellant failed to establish his exclusive ownership and exclusive possession over the suit land. As per the sale deed Ex.DW2/A the plaintiffappellant sold 7/51 share to Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas. Thereafter vide sale deed Ex.DW2/B the said Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas sold the same land to the defendant-respondent. In the Jamabandi Ex.P2 produced by the plaintiffappellant, both the plaintiff-appellant and Ram Niwas are shown as coowners. No revenue documents have been placed on the record in evidence to show that the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent are in possession of a certain specific portions of the suit land. In the absence of

¶30

any evidence having been led by the plaintiff-appellant to show that he was

¶31

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.07 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

RSA-2072-2019

¶33

-4-

¶34

in exclusive possession of the suit land, no injunction can be granted in his favour. Further still, even if the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of some portion of the suit land which is held by him along with other co-owners, the remedy would be to file a suit for partition. No other point was argued.

¶35

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶36

07.01.2025 (ALKA SARIN) jk JUDGE

¶37

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶38

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.07 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Nihal Singh v. Naveen Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nihal Singh v. Naveen Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vansh Vs Rakesh and Ors.

Ravinder and Others Vs Satbir Singh and Anr.

Usha Devi and Another Vs Gomati Alias Gomti and Others

Gurinder Kaur Vs Kuldeep Kaur and Others

Subhash Chander Vs Gulshan Sharma and Ors.

Dal Chand and Ors. Vs Rajender and Ors.