Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Karamjit Singh, J.
Jagroop Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-26766-2010
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate and Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners., for the Appellant; Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate and Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2., for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of joint ownership, every co-owner has equal rights and coordinate interest in the property, and the possession of joint property by one co-sharer is considered the possession of all co-sharers.
Headnote:
Criminal Trespass - Property Dispute - Indian Penal Code - Sections 447, 511, 506, 148, 149 - Bhartu v. Ram Saroop 1981 PLJ 204 - Karamjit Kaur Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2013 (4) AICLR 507 - Rai Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2013 (5) RCR Criminal, 822 - CRM-M-1379 of 2012 Balwinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab - The court discussed the rights and liabilities of co-sharers, the concept of joint ownership, and the requirement of exclusive possession in a sale deed. It highlighted that every co-owner has equal rights and coordinate interest in the property, and the possession of joint property by one co-sharer is considered the possession of all co-sharers. The court emphasized that in this case, the land was jointly owned and possessed by all co-sharers, and the respondents failed to prove charges under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 447, 511, 506, 148, 149 IPC, alleging criminal trespass and property dispute. The respondents claimed that the land was partitioned in 1975, while the petitioners argued that the land was jointly owned and possessed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged family partition in 1975 was not reflected in subsequent revenue records, and the land was partitioned by revenue authorities in 2016. It concluded that at the time of the alleged occurrence in 2008, the land was jointly owned and possessed by all co-sharers, and the respondents failed to prove the charges.
Issues: Dispute over the ownership and possession of the land, validity of the partition deed, and the alleged criminal trespass and theft committed by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alleged family partition in 1975 was not acted upon or incorporated in the revenue record, and the land was partitioned by revenue authorities in 2016. It emphasized the rights and liabilities of co-sharers, the concept of joint ownership, and the requirement of exclusive possession in a sale deed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
JUDGMENT
Karamjit Singh, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.157 dated 19.08.2008 registered under Sections 447, 511, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereto.
2. The impugned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of respondent No.2 Hari Singh wherein he alleged that about 4 months back his son Gurmeet Singh and daughter in law Ranjit Kaur, purchased one acre of land situated on the road in the revenue estate of village of Koaba Police Station Samrala, from Surinder Pal Singh and Inderjit Singh sons of Jai Pal Singh resident of village Lalkala for sum of Rs.26,00,000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) vide sale deed dated 25.04.2008. The mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the vendees on the basis of aforementioned sale deed.
3. Thereafter, they raised small boundary wall around the purchased land. That earlier aforesaid Surinder Pal Singh was having some dispute with his cousin Manpreet Singh (petitioner No.12 herein) with regard to oral partition of joint land which was effected amongst all the co-sharers. The aforesaid land was purchased by Gurmeet Singh and Ranjit Kaur with the consent of said Manpreet Singh. On 17.08.2008 respondent No.2 was going from Chandigarh to Ludhiana and at about 10.00 pm when he reached near Police Chowki Rani Kalan, he saw that the light was on in aforesaid land (plot) and some people were raising construction of Kotha. When he reached near the said plot, he saw that petitioner No.12 Manpreet Singh was present their along with other petitioners and they were raising construction with intention to take illegal possession of aforesaid plot owned by the son and daughter in law of respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 confronted the petitioners, they started abusing him and threatened to kill him and on this respondent No.2 went away from there and later on reported the matter to police. Consequently, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners with regard to the aforesaid incident and in the said FIR, it was also alleged that the petitioners demolished the boundary wall raised by the vendees and also committed theft of 1000 bricks belonging to the vendees which were lying at the spot.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that no such incident as alleged in the FIR had ever taken place. The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the real facts are that petitioner No.12 Manpreet Singh is co-sharer in the land in question which is jointly owned and possessed by him with Surinder Pal Singh, Inderjit Singh and some other persons. The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no such family/oral partition of the joint land had ever taken place as has been alleged by the complainant/respondent No.2. The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the sale deed dated 25.04.2008 was not executed by Surinder Pal Singh and Inderjit Singh, with the consent of petitioner No.12 Manpreet Singh. The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the land in question being jointly owned and possessed by petitioner No.12 Manpreet Singh, Surinder Pal Singh, Inderjit Singh and some other persons, there was no occasion for Surinder Pal Singh and Inderjit Singh to handover the exclusive possession of the same to the vendees at the time of execution of aforesaid sale deed. The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that it is a settled law that a co-sharer has an interest in whole of joint property and also in every parcel of it and the possession of joint property even by one co-sharer, is in eye of law, possession of all co-sharers even if all but one are actually out of possession. In this context the counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Bhartu v. Ram Saroop 1981 PLJ 204 wherein the full Bench of this Court has enumerated the rights and liabilities of co-sharers inter-se. The counsel for the petitioners fu
