SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(P&H) 1443

2012(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 777
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
RSA No.3805 of 2007 (O&M)
Subhash Chand
v.
Prithi Gir & Ors.
{Decided on 03/08/2011}

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Ms. Kamalpreet Kaur, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.

Headnote:Injunction--Res-judicata--Decision in a suit for injunction is not binding on question of title even though issue on title was framed in that suit and incidental finding was there

       (A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.51--Execution--Order of redemption cannot be executed against the co-sharer without impleading them as party in the redemption proceedings in case the defendants want actual possession by way of redemption in that case, the plaintiffs should have arrayed as party in the redemption proceedings which culminated into the order--Redemption of Mortgage Act, 1913, S.3. (Para 16)

       (B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.11--Injunction--Res-judicata--Decision in a suit for injunction is not binding on question of title even though issue on title was framed in that suit and incidental finding was there--In a suit for injunction the title need not be proved--So, the previous judgment although may not operate as res judicata but is a relevant factor to prove the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property--Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37. (Para 12)

       

JUDGMENT

Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - This appeal is directed by defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2007 passed by Shri Hari Paran Singh, District Judge, Sirsa vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2003 passed by Sh Sushil Kumar Garg, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sirsa was dismissed.

2. The facts of the present case in brief are that plaintiffs and legal heirs of Ram Murti (since deceased) are not bound by the order dated 5.8.1997 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sirsa as Collector Sirsa in case titled “Subhash Chand and others Versus Krishan Kumar”, case No. 9 – Redemption of 1996 decided on 5.8.1997 and that the defendants are not entitled to recover possession of the land measuring 24 Kanals comprised in Sq. No.155 Killa No.16 (8-0), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), situated in the area of village Jodhkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa, in execution of the impugned order dated 5.8.1997. The plaintiffs have also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the possession of the suit land from them and the legal heirs of deceased Ram Murti.

3. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiffs that they and legal heirs of deceased Ram Murti are in joint cultivating possession of the suit land and the same is a part of joint khewat, which has an area of about 150 acres; Shri Chanchal Gir one of the co-owners had mortgaged some land out of this joint khewat with one Aasa Ram of Hisar. Sh. Ram Chand Gir, Arjan Gir, Birnal Gir, Atma Gir and Rugha Gir were the sons of Chanchal Gir and they had inherited the land of Chanchal Gir with their sisters with the result that they were recorded to be mortgagors of the suit land; that above said Ram Chand Gir, “Arjan Gir, Birbal, Atma Gir had started interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs and that of Ram Murti (since deceased) and the plaintiffs were forced to file a civil suit No. 937 of 1979 against Ram Chand Gir etc. for injunction and in that suit, the plaintiffs had claimed their possession as co-sharers; the aforesaid suit No. 937 of 1979 was decreed by the Court of Shri S.N. Chandha, Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa on 5.11.1981 and the defendants of that suit were restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land; an appeal was also preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 5.11.1981, which was partly accepted by Shri R.D. Aneja, the then learned Addl. District Judge Sirsa on 22.11.1983 but the decree dated 5.11.1981 qua the suit land was maintained; that defendants No. 1 and 2 are legal heirs of deceased Birbal Gir and defendants No. 4 to 6 are legal heirs of deceased Ram Chand Gir, who were defendants in the earlier suit; that defendants No. 1 to 3 and late Shri Ram Chand Gir, predecessor of defendants No. 4 to 6 filed a petition for redemption of 55 Kanals 4 marlas land, which includes the suit land on payment of Rs.6000/- in the Court of S.D.O. (Civil) Sirsa; that petition was filed against Krishan Kumar etc., the mortgagees; that the aforesaid petition was allowed by S.D.O. (Civil) Sirsa on 5.8.1997 and on the basis of said order, the defendants have filed an execution petition for delivery of the possession of the suit land; that order dated 5.8.1997 passed by S.D.O. (Civil) Sirsa is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and legal heirs of deceased Ram Murti because they were not parties to the redemption petition and they are independently in possession of the suit land as co-sharers; that the plaintiffs have never claimed their possession under the mortgagee that the defendants/mortgagors have already been restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in civil suit No.937 of 1979 and the decree passed in civil suit No. 937 of 1979 is still operative and binding upon the parties; that the defendants are bent upon to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land in the guise of the impu




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top