Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Surinder Singh, J.
Jiwan Singh
Versus
R.Kant
C.R. No. 2833 of 1983,
Decided On : JANUARY 12, 1984
INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - REVENUE ENTRIES - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - CO-SHARER IN EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - CONSTRUCTION ON DISPUTED LAND - STATUS QUO - MAINTENANCE - CHANGE OF NATURE OF LAND - RESTRICTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - DISPOSAL OF SUITS WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD.
Fact of the Case:
R. Kant, as the Proprietor of R. Kant and Company, filed a suit against Sant Lal and others for permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing him from the suit land and interfering with his possession. He also filed an application for temporary injunction in the same terms. The trial Court refused to grant temporary injunction in favor of R. Kant and issued temporary injunction against him and his Company restraining them from dispossessing the right-holders from the suit land or interfering with their possession. R. Kant appealed against the trial Court's verdict, and the Additional District Judge accepted the appeals, holding that R. Kant was proved to have purchased the suit property and was in possession of the same. The Additional District Judge also issued a direction that the status quo regarding the suit property be maintained till the decision of the suit and its nature should not be changed by R. Kant. The right-holders filed Revision Petitions against the order of the Additional District Judge, and R. Kant filed Revision Petitions impugning the direction issued to him to maintain status quo and not to change the nature of the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that R. Kant had established a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction in his favor, as he had purchased the suit property from the right-holders who were in actual possession of the same. The Court also found that the balance of convenience lay in favor of R. Kant, as he would suffer an irreparable loss if temporary injunction was not granted. The Court further found that the Additional District Judge was not justified in imposing a condition that the nature of the land should not be altered during the pendency of the suits, as R. Kant, being in actual possession of the property, had the right to deal with the land in the manner he desired.
Issues: 1. Whether R. Kant had established a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction in his favor? 2. Whether the balance of convenience lay in favor of R. Kant? 3. Whether the Additional District Judge was justified in imposing a condition that the nature of the land should not be altered during the pendency of the suits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that R. Kant had established a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction in his favor, as he had purchased the suit property from the right-holders who were in actual possession of the same. The Court relied on the Sale Deeds, Khasra Girdawris, Jamabandi, and other documentary evidence to support its finding. 2. The Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favor of R. Kant, as he would suffer an irreparable loss if temporary injunction was not granted. The Court noted that R. Kant had purchased the suit property for the purpose of setting up a Film Studio Complex and had already invested a substantial amount of money in the project. 3. The Court held that the Additional District Judge was not justified in imposing a condition that the nature of the land should not be altered during the pendency of the suits, as R. Kant, being in actual possession of the property, had the right to deal with the land in the manner he desired. The Court relied on the principle that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a portion of an undivided holding can transfer it subject to adjustment of rights of other co-sharers at the time of partition.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Revision Petitions filed by the right-holders and allowed the Revision Petitions filed by R. Kant. The Court set aside the direction issued by the Additional District Judge that the status quo regarding the suit property be maintained and its nature should not be changed by R. Kant. The Court also directed the trial Court to dispose of the suits within six months from the date on which the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for further proceedings.
Surinder Singh, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of four Revision Petitions constituted by two sets of two petitions each. The first set is of Civil Revisions Nos. 2833 and 2834 of 1983 filed by Jiwan Singh etc. and Sant Lal etc. respectively, against R.Kant and another in the former petition and R. Kant alone in the latter. Both these petitions had been admitted for hearing and ex parte order in favour of the revision-petitioners regarding status quo as to possession had been issued at the Motion stage. Subsequently, the other two Revision Petitions, i.e. Nos. 3199 and 3200 of 1983 were filed, by the opposite party, i.e., R. Kant, impugning the very orders which were the subject-matter of challenge in the earlier two Revision Petitions. Notice of Motion was issued in the latter two Revision Petitions on December 13, 1983, on which occasion Mr. V.K. Jain, Advocate, accepted Notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. The other respondents were ordered to be served for the next date. After due service, all the respondents were represented by a learned counsel.
2. When Civil Revisions Nos. 3199 and 3200 of 1983 were taken up for hearing after Notice of Motion, the learned counsel for the respondents in the said Revision Petitions contended that the set of two Revision Petitions admitted earlier, may also be taken up as ex parte order of status quo had been issued in those petitions and in the absence of the same, there was a possibility of conflicting decisions in regard to the interim relief to be granted in the latter Revision Petitions. Consequently, the earlier Revision Petitions were also ordered to be heard along with the latter two, in order to avoid any such conflict of decisions in the two sets of petitions, in which the same orders of the lower appellate Court had been impugned.
3. All the four Revision Petitions as also some miscellaneous matters connected therewith have been heard at considerable length, the arguments having been addressed by Mr. P.R. Mridul, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr V.S. Vasishtha, Advocate, on behalf of R. Kant and by Mr. M.C. Bhandare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. N.C. Jain, Sr. Advocate and Mr. V.K. Jain, Advocate on behalf of Jiwan Singh etc. and Sant Lal etc.
4. A brief resume of the facts is necessary for a proper appreciation of the present dispute. On March 16, 1982, R. Kant as Proprietor of R. Kant and Company filed as suit against Sant Lal and others for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit land and interfering with his possession. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction in the same terms was also moved. The plaintiff R. Kant alleged that he was in possession of the suit land comprising Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 and had developed the same for setting up a Film Studio Complex on the land. It was further alleged that the opposite party was trying to take forcible possession of the suit land. The suit was contested and the plea raised by the opposite party was that the suit land was a part of a much larger area which was a joint holding of the Proprietors of the village and that the predecessors-in-interest of plaintiff R. Kant were not in possession of the suit land. The further plea was that the alienations entered into by the said predecessors-in-interest in favour of the plaintiff were void and illegal. The trial Court was at the stage of considering the grant or otherwise of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
5. Meanwhile, Jiwan Singh and some others, residents of the village filed a suit on April 17, 1982 for permanent injunction against R.Kant aforesaid. This suit was also accompanied by an application for the grant of temporary injunction, the allegation of the plaintiffs in this suit being that they were the Proprietors of the village and the suit land being shamilat land, could not have been transferred by some of the co-sharers who were not in exclusive p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
