Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurbir Singh, J.
Yadram – Appellant
Versus
Murari Lal – Respondent
R.S.A.No. 221 of 2019
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - CPC - Section 151 - RSA-221-2019 - [Section 5 of Limitation Act, Section 151 of CPC] - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of CPC. The court also discussed the legal principles related to possession and injunction in the context of joint property ownership, citing relevant case laws and legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over joint property ownership and a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from raising construction on a disputed portion of the land. The courts below had dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff appealed to the present court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was not in exclusive possession of any portion of the suit property and that the joint property had already been partitioned, as evidenced by a document provided by the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff could not seek injunction against the co-owners and that there was no merit in the appeal.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the possession of the joint property, the validity of the partition document provided by the defendants, and the plaintiff's right to seek injunction against the co-owners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles related to joint property ownership, possession, and injunction, citing relevant case laws and legal provisions, including the Full Bench decision in Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup and the Division Bench decision in Bachan Singh vs. Swaran Singh.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the courts below and concluding that there was no misreading of evidence or substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
Judgment
Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.
CM-498-C-2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
CM-497-C-2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 of CPC is for condonation of delay of 261 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the delay of 261 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.
CM-500-C-2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 of CPC is to place on record copies of orders of courts below i.e. dated 05.01.2015 and 14.09.2017, typed copy of grounds of appeal filed before the learned Appellate Court and for exemption from filing certified copies thereof. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the abovementioned documents are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
RSA-221-2019
1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of plaintiff-Yadram (since deceased) against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Yadram (since deceased), (hereinafter called, “plaintiff”) filed a suit for injunction that the respondents-defendants (hereinafter called, “defendants”) be restrained from raising construction or from diminishing the utility of the disputed portion i.e. mustil and killa No.29//18/1. The case of the plaintiff is that he is owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share in joint land falling in khewat No.104, Khatoni No.136, kita 8 i.e. 35 kanal 3 marla situated in Village Rivasa, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. It has been submitted that no partition has been effected till date and disputed portion i.e. mustil and killa No.29//18/1 comprising 2 kanal 4 marla situated at Kahina-Mahendergarh road, is a valuable portion and plaintiff has 1/4th Share in the joint property. However, the defendants want to raise construction over the same without getting the same partitioned. Hence, the suit for injunction was filed.
2.1 Upon notice, defendants No.1, 3 to 7 appeared whereas defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte. The said defendants filed written statement and submitted that the suit land is not joint and vide one writing/family settlement dated 02.03.1981, it was mutually partitioned between the family members and they became owner in possession over specific portions. As per said family settlement, khasra No.202 out of area measuring 2 kanals 0 marla gair mumkin, 1 kanal 0 marla situated in western side was given to Yad Ram, plaintiff, whereas 1 kanal 0 marla on the eastern side was given to one Mangal Chand @ Mam Chand i.e. father of defendants No.3 and 4. Since defendant No.3-Ram Kishore wanted to get loan for installation of a factory, 1 kanal land on eastern side of khasra No.202 was transferred in his name vide sale deed No.1494 dated 02.03.1981. The disputed portion i.e. mustil and killa No.29//81/1 comprising 2 kanals 1 marla was given to Daya Chand i.e. the father of defendants No.5 to 7, and Smt. Laxmi widow of Jeet Ram, who is mother of defendant No.1, in equal share i.e. ½ each. It is further submitted that after the partition, all the four brothers i.e. Yad Ram (plaintiff), Jeet Ram (father of defendants No.1 and 2), Mam Chand @ Mangal Chand (father of defendants No.3 and 4) and Dayal Chand (father of defendants No.5 to 7), who are the descendant of their common ancestor Sohan Lal, became owner in possession over specific portions and thus, have raised construction. It was also contended that in the plaint, the plaintiff intentionally has not mentioned about khasra No.202 as he himself has raised con
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a co-owner who is not in exclusive possession of any part of the property is not entitled to seek an injunction against another co-owner, unle....
Co-owners can construct on joint property unless clear interference with another co-owner's rights is demonstrated. An injunction is not sustainable if the plaintiff himself has previously constructe....
Co-owners cannot raise construction on joint property without consent from other co-owners, and must substantiate claims of irreparable loss to obtain an injunction.
A co-owner cannot seek injunction against another co-owner without a suit for partition. The right to relief for demolition and injunction depends on the circumstances of each case.
The main legal point established is that a plaintiff must prove joint ownership and possession in a property dispute, and even a co-sharer cannot be injuncted from selling his share of the property.
A co-owner not in possession cannot seek injunction unless there is ouster or acts detrimental to the interests of other co-owners.
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
