PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
T.H.B.Chalapathi, J.
Babu Ram
Versus
Joginder Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 1082 of 1997,
Decided On : MARCH 23, 1998
Injunction - Joint Property - The court upheld the decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the Khal situated in the plaintiff's joint property. The court emphasized that the suit for injunction did not affect the pending partition proceedings and that the rights and equities of the parties would be determined in the partition proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from demolishing the Khal situated in their joint property, claiming that the land had not been partitioned and they had been exclusively using the Khal for irrigating their land.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below decreed the suit based on the evidence on record, and the appellate court upheld the decree for permanent injunction. The court emphasized that the suit for injunction did not affect the pending partition proceedings and that the rights and equities of the parties would be determined in the partition proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from demolishing the Khal situated in the joint property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit for injunction did not affect the pending partition proceedings and that the rights and equities of the parties would be determined in the partition proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
T.H.B.Chalapathi, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge Kurukshetra dated 16.11.1996 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Senior Sub Judge kurukshetra dated 9.6.1994.
2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the Khal situated in his land. The suit property is claimed to be the joint property of the parties. According to the plaintiffs, the land has not been partitioned and that they have been enjoying the Khal in question for irrigating their land which has been in their exclusive possession. Both the Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record decreed the suit. The said finding has been arrived at on the basis of parties evidence on record. As the same is a pure finding of fact, this Court will not interfere with the same.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the partition proceedings are pending and the judgments in the suit may not affect the rights of the parties in the partition proceedings and the equities of the parties have to be worked out while effecting the partition of the lands which are joint. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. This is only a suit for injunction. Whether the land on which the Khal is now in existence has to be allotted to the plaintiff or some other co-sharer is a matter to be decided only in partition proceedings. It is always open to the plaintiff to claim that the land which has been in his possession has to be allotted to him and it is equally so in the case of a purchaser of a co-owner to seek that the specific portion which he has purchased be allotted to him. It is matter to be decided in the partition proceedings while adjusting the equities between the parties. Therefore any observation made by the Courts below while decreeing the suit for injunction shall not come in the way in the partition proceedings while adjusting the equities between the parties.
4. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.