IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction – Suit for partition-Co-sharers were restrained from creating any charge on property – No order restraining them from alienating the property at all-Sale of share by co-sharer in favour of third party during pendency of litigation is not illegal

KULDIP SINGH, J.

1. By this single judgment, I shall dispose of two connected Regular Second Appeal No.6076 of 2015 titled as Rajinder Kaur (deceased) through legal heir Usha v. Gurbhajan Kaur (deceased) through LRs Upinder Kaur and others and Regular Second Appeal No.2761 of 2016 titled as S.C.Bhalla v. Smt.Usha and others, arising out of same judgments of the Courts below. Facts of the case are extracted from Regular Second Appeal No.6076 of 2015.

2. Rajinder Kaur (deceased) now represented through her legal heir Usha had filed a suit for partition of SCO No.40, Sector 7C, Chandigarh, Madhya Marg, UT Chandigarh by metes and bounds by way of auction amongst the co-owners/share holders and if the auction amongst co-owners/share holders is not possible then by putting the said property on open auction and the sale proceeded be distributed amongst the co-owners and share holders. Further prayer was made for permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.3 to 9 from selling/alienating their share and from letting out or parting with the possession, directly or indirectly or creating any kind of charge/encumbrances on the property in dispute. Further, rendition of accounts was also sought from defendant nos.3 to 9 regarding rent collected by them from the tenants i.e. defendant nos.10 to 14. Further injunction was sought against defendant nos.3 to 9 for restraining them from receiving any rent from defendant nos.10 to 14 and directing defendant nos.10 to 14 to deposit the rent in the Court.

3. Facts of the case are that plaintiff along with defendant nos.1 and 2 Raj Kulbir Kaur wife of Bhupinder Singh purchased SCO No.40, Sector 7C Chandigarh to the extent of 75% from defendant no.3 namely Bhupinder Singh vide sale deed dated 26.6.1975. 25% share was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Another 25% in favour of defendant no.2 and remaining 25% in favour of Rajkulbir Kaur wife of defendant no.3. Rajkulbir Kaur later on sold her share to some other person. At present, share of plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 9 is as under:-

1. Rajinder Kaur (plainitff) 25%

2. Gurbhajan Kaur (defendant no.1) 12.5%

3. Prabhasharan Singh Sandhu 12.5% (defendant No.2)

4. Bhupinder Singh (defendant no.3) 1%

5. Ajay Aggarwal (defendant no.4) 17%

6. Neelam Aggarwal (defendant no.5) 17%

7. Amarnath Singla (defendant no.6) 3.75%

8. Laxmi Devi (defendant no.7) 3.75%

9. Meena Singla (defendant no.8) 3.75%

10. Seema Rani (defendant no.9) 3.75%

4. It is further claimed that defendant no.10 is tenant in half portion on the ground floor adjacent to SCO No.41, Sector 7C, Chandigarh and said portion was leased out to him @ Rs. 1900/- per month. After termination of the tenancy, suit for possession was filed which was ultimately decided by this Court in RSA No.560 of 1992 on 6.4.2005, directing defendant no.10 to vacate the premises within one year from the date of order and also pay future charges @ Rs. 5000/- per month. Defendant nos.6 to 9 are in occupation of remaining half portion of SCO in question adjoining SCO No.39. They have now purchased 15% share from the previous owner. Therefore, plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 have joint possession of SCO in question. Defendant no.3 is co-owner to the extent of 1% only and receiving entire rent from defendant no.10. He let out the same to other persons without any authority or consent from other co-owners who have major share in the property. Defendant no.3 Bhupinder Singh has also threatened to compromise the matter with defendant no.10. Since plaintiff, defendant no.1 and 2 are co-owners to the extent of 50% jointly, therefore, any such act of defendant no.3 will cause injustice to plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 and multiply litigation.

5. Defendant nos.1 and 2 in the written statement, did deny the share as stated in the plaint and stated that besides defendant no.10, remaining portion of the premises in question is in occupation of the other tenants. Defendant nos.6 to 9 were also tenants in the premis