Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Archana Puri, J.
Rahul – Appellant
Versus
Pirthi Raj & Ors. – Respondents
CR-2304-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-07-2022
Injunction - Land Possession - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC - [Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC] - The court discussed the possession of the land, the rights of co-sharers, and the relevance of revenue court proceedings in deciding the injunction application. The court found that the respondent-plaintiff, being in exclusive possession of the land, had the right to seek injunction against other co-sharers. The lower Appellate Court correctly observed that the proceedings recorded by the revenue court had no bearing on the decision between the parties during the pendency of the civil suit.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and others, seeking to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the land and from damaging the orchard and interfering with cultivation and irrigation. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was initially dismissed by the Civil Judge, but was later allowed by the Addl. District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Addl. District Judge allowed the injunction application, considering the exclusive possession of the respondent-plaintiff and the irrelevance of the proceedings recorded by the revenue court after the institution of the suit.
Issues: The main issue was the possession of the land and the right of the respondent-plaintiff to seek injunction against other co-sharers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent-plaintiff, being in exclusive possession of the land, had the right to seek injunction against other co-sharers. The lower Appellate Court correctly observed that the proceedings recorded by the revenue court had no bearing on the decision between the parties during the pendency of the civil suit.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Archana Puri, J. - Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fazilka, whereby, an order dated 01.02.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Abohar, has been reversed and the injunction application has been allowed.
2. Material facts, as culled out from the pleadings placed on the record are that, initially, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioner Rahul and performa respondents, thereby restraining petitioner-defendant No.3 and performa defendants, from interfering into the peaceful possession over the land measuring 16 Kanals 00 marla, comprised in Rect. No.94 Killa No.9 (8-0), 12 (8-0), Khewat No.335/10, Khatauni No.651, as per Jamabandi for the year 201718. Further restraint had also been sought from destroying/damaging the Kinnow orchard and interfering in the cultivation and irrigation of the land by the plaintiff. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed.
3. Vide order dated 01.02.2022, at first instance, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Abohar, thereby making an observation that Khasra Girdawari had been challenged before the Court of Assistant Collector-II, Khuian Sarwar and order dated 23.09.2021 has been passed with regard to the correction of Khasra Girdawari, whereby the said application has been consigned to record room sine-die, till the final decision of the suit. It was further opined that there was concealment of the material facts by the respondent/plaintiff, with regard to the pendency of the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari before the Court of Assistant Collector-II, Khuian Sarwar, while filing the original suit. Hence, the application was dismissed.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed. Vide impugned order dated 19.05.2022, the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) was set aside and an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed. The present petitioner and performa respondents were restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and further restrained from destroying/damaging the Kinnow orchard and from interfering in cultivation and irrigation of the said land by the plaintiff, during the pendency of the main suit, illegally, forcibly, except in due course of law.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2022 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fazilka, petitioner Rahul, who was impleaded as defendant No.3 before the lower Court, had filed the present revision petition.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the suit in hand was filed on 23.07.2021. However, the order dated 23.09.2021 was passed by the Assistant Collector-II, Khuian Sarwar, on the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari, which was filed on 05.08.2021. In the light of the same, it becomes evident that suit was filed much prior to the filing of an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari, by Rahul and thus, wrong observation had been made in the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), about concealment of the pendency of application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari, by the respondent-plaintiff Pirthi Raj.
7. As per the Jambandi of the suit property for the year 20172018, which has been brought on record, it is evident that the respondentplaintiff is shown to be co-sharer of the joint khata and he is in exclusive possession of the suit property bearing Rect. No.94, Khasra No.9 and 12. Even, in the Khasra Girdawari from Sawni 2020 to Hari 2021, the possession of the respondent-plaintiff is reflected, vis-a-vis, the suit property.
8. No doubt, now petitioner Rahul is shown to be co-sharer in joint khata, vide mutation No.1684 reflected in Jamabandi for the year 2017-18, but however, Pirthi Raj, is shown to be in ex
The right of a co-sharer in exclusive possession of land to seek injunction against other co-sharers, and the relevance of revenue court proceedings in deciding injunction applications.
The lack of prima facie evidence negates the basis for granting an injunction in land possession disputes.
The court upheld the validity of prior partition proceedings and the rightful possession of the plaintiff, confirming injunction against the appellant's interference.
Co-owners cannot seek injunction against each other without proof of exclusive possession or detrimental acts; mere construction does not constitute ouster.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
