Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2678
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harminder Singh Madaan, J.
Satya Parkash & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Puran And Ors. - Respondents
RSA-2485-2000 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-07-2019
Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the Appellant; Raina Sabharwal Thakur, Advocate, for the Respondent
The plaintiff's conduct barred him from the relief of permanent injunction as he claimed exclusive possession of the land without disclosing the defendants' share, highlighting the requirement for the plaintiff to approach the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts.
Headnote:
Permanent Injunction - Ownership Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38, Section 41 - [OWNERSHIP DISPUTE] - [Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38, Section 41] - The court discussed the discretionary nature of permanent injunction and the requirement for the plaintiff to approach the court with clean hands. It highlighted that an injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff's conduct disentitles him to the assistance of the court. The court found that the plaintiff's conduct barred him from the relief of permanent injunction as he claimed exclusive possession of the land without disclosing the defendants' share. The court also emphasized the rights of co-sharers in joint land and the incompatibility of the plaintiff's claims of exclusive possession and adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking a decree for permanent injunction, claiming ownership and possession of the suit land. The defendants contested the suit, asserting their share in the land as co-sharers.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment, and dismissed the suit. The High Court found the plaintiff's conduct barred him from the relief of permanent injunction and reversed the trial court's decision.
Issues: Ownership dispute, entitlement to permanent injunction, special cost, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's conduct barred him from the relief of permanent injunction as he claimed exclusive possession of the land without disclosing the defendants' share. The court emphasized the rights of co-sharers in joint land and the incompatibility of the plaintiff's claims of exclusive possession and adverse possession.
Final Decision: The High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the First Appellate Court's decision to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismiss the suit.
JUDGMENT
Harminder Singh Madaan, J. - Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Sh. Mool Chand son of Sh. Nathu Ram son of Sh. Devdutt, resident of village Sulkha, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari had brought a suit against defendants i.e. S/Sh.Puran and Tara sons of Som Parkash, Smt. Kunta Devi widow of Rangi Lal, Smt. Yashwanti Devi - widow and Sh. Satish Kumar son of Sh. Jawahar and Ram Payari widow of Kishan, all residents of the same village, craving for grant of a decree for permanent injunction submitting that he is owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 188, Khatoni No. 247, rectangle No. 55, killa No. 14/1(3-13), khasra Nos. 406(0-2), 407(0-2), 408(0-2) measuring 3 kanals 19 marlas situated at village Sulkha, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari since long; that the defendants wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiff on the strength of the entries in their favour managed by them in the revenue record, not listening to his request to desist from doing so. According to the plaintiff, the defendants never remained in possession of any part of the suit land for the last 12 years before institution of the suit whereas the possession of the plaintiff has been open, peaceful and hostile for the last more than 12 years. Feeling threatened at the hands of the defendants, the plaintiff had filed the civil suit in question.
2. On being put to notice, the defendants appeared. Defendants No. 1 to 4 had filed a joint written statement contesting the suit denying that the plaintiff was owner of the suit land, rather contending that the suit land is dohli property and several other dohlidars had got share in such land; that Mool Chand had 1/10 share, Puran and Tara 1/5th share each, Ram Swamp had 1/4th share, whereas Kishan Lal and other defendants had also share in the said land; that earlier the entries in the revenue record were wrong, so those were corrected by the revenue authorities. In the end, those defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. The plaintiff had filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in respect of the suit land in his capacity as Dohlidar bavaze Punarth billa lagan as alleged? OPP.
2. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the defendants are entitled to special cost as provided under Section 35-B as alleged? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his own act and conduct? OPD.
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
6. Relief.
5. Both the parties led evidence in respect of their claims.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, issue No. 3 against the defendants, issue No. 4 against the defendants and issue No. 5 against the defendants. Resultantly suit of the plaintiff was decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land in his capacity as dohlidar which is established. This was so done vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.1999.
7. Defendants No. 1 to 4 were aggrieved by the said judgment and decree and they had filed an appeal before the Court of District Judge, Rewari, which was assigned to Additional District Judge, Rewari, who vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.2000 accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
8. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the legal representatives of the plaintiff had filed the present regular second appeal before this Court, notice of which was issued to the respondents.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.
10. Permanent injunction dealt with by Section 38 of the Spe
