Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Pushpa Devi & others – Appellants
Versus
Amro Devi and others – Respondents
RSA No. 4323 of 2013
Decided On : 02-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal
The principle of joint tenancy and the impact of exclusive possession on the entitlement to joint possession were central to the judgment.
Headnote:
possession - property dispute - - [Section 1724] - The suit property stands located upon khasra No.1724. In the relevant revenue records, the suit property stands reflected to be in the joint ownership of the parties at contest, sequel, whereof is qua thereupon standing aroused the principle of joint tenancy where within the trite legal nuance is held qua until its dismemberment occurs by metes and bounds, the recorded co-owners holding unity of title besides community of possession therein, whereupon any exclusive holding of possession by any of the co-owners of the jointly recorded suit property, renders his holding possession thereof to be construable to be possession also on behalf of the other recorded co-owners, thereupon he stands disabled to despite the factum of exclusivity of his possession, oust the legitimate claim qua joint possession thereof of other co-sharers besides any co-owner holding exclusive possession of joint property not holding any leverage to forestall other co-owners to beget its partition by metes and bounds.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought possession of a disputed room in a property they co-owned with the defendants. The defendants claimed joint ownership and exclusive possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property was reflected to be in the joint ownership of the parties, and the principle of joint tenancy applied. The defendants' exclusive possession did not prevent the plaintiffs from claiming joint possession unless the property was partitioned by metes and bounds.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement to possession, maintainability of the suit, estoppel, partition of the joint family property, absolute ownership of the property, and co-ownership of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of joint tenancy applied, and exclusive possession by one co-owner did not prevent the other co-owners from claiming joint possession unless the property was partitioned by metes and bounds.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgments and decrees of the lower courts.
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Under the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below, the suit of the plaintiffs stood dismissed, whereupon, theirs standing aggrieved, they through the instant appeal constituted here before concert to seek their reversal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land comprised in Khata No. 366 min, Khatauni NO. 584 min, Khasra No.1724, measuring 0-02-56 hectares situated at Mohal and Mauza Haripur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P, is abadi deh and the plaintiff is also co-sharer of this land. The plaintiff Mangat Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants had his shop consisting of four rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor on the above said khasra No. 1724. Previously, it was only one shop single storied slate roofed which was owned and constructed by the father of the plaintiff, Shri Nathu Ram and after his death in family settlement, the shop was given to Mangat Ram, plaintiff. The total value of this shop was fixed as Rs.2400/- and the plaintiff paid Rs.800/- each to Hamir Chand and Minjroo, who were brothers of Mangat Ram. The plaintiff Mangat Ram became absolute owner of the shop in dispute. After getting the shop in the year 1980-81 the plaintiff converted the single storied shop in four rooms by giving partition walls and it was converted into four rooms and similarly second story was also raised where to rooms were constructed. Shri Hamir Chand was serving away and was residing with his family outside the State of H.P., who came back in the village in the year 1990 after his retirement along with his family and household articles. Since old joint house was small and was not having sufficient accommodation to keep the articles brought by Hamir Chand, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, Hamir Chand requested the plaintiff to give the room in dispute to keep the material/articles brought by him after his retirement. The plaintiff agreed and allowed Hamir Chand to keep the material in disputed room i.e. in one room of the first floor as shown by letters 'CDEF' in the map. The said Hamir Chand had agreed to vacate the accommodation after constructing his own house. The said Hamir Chand constructed his house in the year 1994-95, but even then he did not vacate the accommodation provided to him by Mangat Ram. The decree for possession of the room in question that is mentioned as 'CDEF' in the map in the first floor of the house has been sought.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and estoppel have been taken. On merits, it has been submitted that the shop in question was joint family property of Mangat Ram, Hamir Chand and Minjroo Ram, which on 7.6.1982 along with other joint houses has been partitioned in family settlement by owners i.e. Mangat Ram, Hamir Chand, Minjroo Ram and Bishni Devi wife of Minjroo Ram with the help and intervention of respectables of village. The settlement was reduced into writing signed by co-sharers. This family settlement was made to keep peace and harmony among brothers and to enjoy the joint family property. The shop was valued and share of Minjroo Ram amounting to Rs.800/- was given to him which was received by him. Since, 7.6.1982 the plaintiff and defendants are owners of the shop. This shop was earlier having one room below and one room on the 1st floor which after settlement was converted into four rooms so it could be shared by the parties. The plaintiff and Hamir Chand are owners of the shop in equal shares. No amount of Rs.800/- was paid to Hamir Chand. It is the plaintiff who had taken the ground floor of the shop from Hamir Chand on request. Therefore, dismissal of the suit is sought.
4. The plaintiffs/appellants herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/respondents herein, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and
