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

2014 Supreme(P&H) 842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
Satish Chander and others - Appellants
Versus
Savitri Devi and others - Respondents
RSA No.2150 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided On: 11th April, 2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that cosharers in exclusive possession of a specific portion of the joint property are entitled to protect their possession till partition takes place.

Headnote:

Joint Ownership - Property Dispute - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 44, Indian Easements Act, Section 7] - The court discussed the joint ownership of the property, the rights of cosharers, and the entitlement to protection of possession till partition takes place. The court highlighted the legal provisions of joint ownership, exclusive possession, and the right to raise construction on a part of the joint land.

Fact of the Case:

The suit involved a property dispute regarding joint ownership and possession of land and trees between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed joint ownership and interest in the trees standing on the land, while the defendants asserted exclusive possession and rights over their share of the property.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court and the first appellate court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of injunction, as the defendants were found to be in exclusive possession of their share of the land and entitled to protect their possession till partition takes place.

Issues: The issues revolved around the rights of cosharers, entitlement to relief of injunction, and the legality of the defendants' actions in relation to the joint property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the defendants were in exclusive possession of their share of the land and entitled to protect their possession till partition takes place. The plaintiffs' claim for relief of injunction was denied based on the defendants' exclusive possession and rights as cosharers.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit in the substantial questions of law raised by the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

As per the averments made in the suit, property measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, is the joint ownership of Taraf Brahmins to the extent of 30 shares out of 90 shares and the appellants, being Brahmins of village Dohar, hold 6 ¼ shares therein in the entire Khewat No.18 as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 198485. According to the appellants, there stood 140 trees (i.e. 60 Rajain trees, 15 Mango trees, 10 Sarinh trees, 15 Dhamman trees and 40 Eucalyptus trees) in the suit property. The appellants, who are joint owners of the land also hold joint interest in the trees standing therein, whereas the defendants were having no title in the suit property except that their names were recorded as tenants at will in Khasra No.95 of the Jamabandi. According to the appellants, the defendants being tenants have neither any right to cut any tree nor to raise any type of construction or change user of the property except with the consent of the landlord. According to them, the defendants never cultivated the suit property and entries in the revenue record were false and frivolous. Since the defendant respondents threatened to cut and remove the trees, the matter was reported to the Police and then the defendants claimed to have purchased some share of some other cosharers. However, according to the plaintiff appellants, even if the defendants were cosharers, they had no right to remove the trees from the joint land without partition and further had no right to raise any construction without their consent. Hence, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the suit property was recorded in the revenue record as Taraf Brahmins. Taraf Chang and Taraf Rajputan is the joint property of the proprietors of the village as per their share and the defendants were in exclusive possession of their respective shares and were also having residential houses in the suit property. It was further averred that they have also planted various kind of trees in the land falling to their shares. The defendants belong to Rajput community which had 40 shares in the suit property recorded as Taraf Rajputan. It was further replied that no such type of trees are standing in the suit land. It was further stated that the defendants were cosharers in the suit property and owners to the extent of their shares and were in exclusive possession and thus, have every right to use the property as they like. It was further replied that the plaintiffs have got no right to interfere in their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

After considering the evidence on record and the arguments raised, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 04.12.2008 held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed, and thus dismissed the suit.

Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.01.2010. While dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate Court observed as under:

“17. In order to prove his case, plaintiff Satish Chander has stated that they are members of Brahman Community and therefore, they are cosharers in the Brahman Patti of the suit land. The defendants are recorded in the revenue record as tenants at Will. Therefore, the defendants cannot acquire any right or status of coowners so long as partition is not effected. As such the defendants have no right to raise construction or cut the trees. In order to corroborate the oral evidence appellants/plaintiffs have placed on record Jamabandi of the joint khata of the suit land bearing khasra No.1103(13), 1133(312), 1129(714), 1211 (124). Except t














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top