Mr. Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this revision petition against an order dated 27th June, 1995 passed by Ms. Indermeet Kaur Kochhar, ADJ. in Suit No. 59/95 titled Devi Ram v. Dewan Singh and Others, whereby the respondent No. I was allowed to proceed with the construction in the house bearing No. 1309/90, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the suit property. The impugned order was passed on an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. of the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge while fixing a date for reply to the said application, permitted the respondent No. 1 to proceed with construction.

( 2 ) ON 11th July, 1995 when this petition had come up for admission, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 27th June, 1995. Counsel for the respondent has filed reply to the revision petition together with the documents relied in support of his case. As the dispute concerned the members of a family, viz. petitioner son on the one side and father and brothers of petitioner on the other side, the matter was adjourned twice to enable the parties to reach a settlement, which would have been in the interest of family. However, it was not possible for the parties to come to a settlement. The arguments were heard on 30. 8. 1995 and order reserved.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be noted.

(I) The petitioner filed a suit for partition, declaration and injunction claiming that the suit property is a joint Hindu family property. The petitioner being in occupation of the part of the property on the ground floor had filed alongwith the suit an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. seeking a restraint order against the respondents from dispossessing him from the part of the suit property in his occupation. He further prayed that the respondents be restrained from carrying out any construction during the pendency and till disposal of this suit. (ii) The suit had come up before the Vacation Judge on 17. 6. 1995, when the respondents vide an ex parte order were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner without the due process of law. The respondents undertook not to dispossess the petitioner and the stay order was extended on 23. 6. 1995. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, also moved the Court with the allegation that the respondents had damaged the premises in his occupation. A Local Commissioner was appointed to assess the damage. (iii) The petitioner s case is that the property in suit is joint family property, having been purchased out of the joint funds and earnings from ancestral agricultural lands. The petitioner claimed that his grandfather late Shri Niader Singh had sold agricultural lands and distributed the proceeds to his sons including respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 out of the sale proceeds had constructed the present house on a plot that had been purchased out of the joint funds earlier, in his name. The respondent No. I refutes the allegations and states that he is the sole owner of the suit property, which is a self acquired one. He relies on the sale-deed in his favour. According to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner as a son had been simply allowed to reside by him in a room on the ground floor. The respondents deny that the suit property is a joint family property.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Trial Court had illegally granted permission to the respondents to carry on the construction which would affect his rights. He further urged that unauthorized construction was being carried out. There was no sanctioned plan. In the garb of repairs the roof of the portion which was in his occupation had been deliberately damaged by the respondents. Counsel for the respondents refuted these allega- tions stating that the petitioner had no right in the pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document