PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT

CHANDIGARH

114

CR-1294-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.04.2022

SUNDRI DEVI AND ORS

... Petitioners

Versus

SANTOSH AND ORS

... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

***

Present:

Mr. Manish Bhasin, Advocate and

Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate

for the petitioners.

****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India raising a challenge to the order dated

27.01.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which

the appeal filed by the respondents against the order passed on an

application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.

for grant of ad-interim injunction has been allowed and the order dated

22.10.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra has

been set aside.

As per the facts involved in the instant case, Dharam Pal, the

predecessor-in-interest of respondents-plaintiffs was recorded as owner in

possession of the land measuring 08 kanal 06 marla out of total land

comprising in khewat no.154, 155, 156 and 157 situated at village Doda

Kheri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The ownership of said land

was duly reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2016-17. It is contended in

the said suit that the alleged predecessor being owner and co-sharer was in

RAJENDER KUMAR

2022.04.23 17:16

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-1294-2022 (O&M)

-2-

actual, physical and cultivating possession of the said land to the extent of

his share. Unfortunately, Dharam Pal, the predecessor-in-interest of the

respondents-plaintiffs died on 16.04.1998 leaving behind the respondents-

plaintiffs as his only Class-I legal heirs. Upon death of Dharam Pal,

respondent No.1 re-married with one Lachhman, resident of village

Jalalaveeran, District Karnal and accordingly, the respondents-plaintiffs

started residing at the said village. However, the ancestral property and

household articles of the respondents-plaintiffs were also retained at village

Doda Kheri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

It is further contended that for the management and cultivation

of their agricultural land, the same was given under the lease agreement in

favour of one Sham Lal son of Punna Ram resident of Village Rattan Dera,

Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (respondent No.4 herein) and he had

remained in cultivating possession thereof. The suit for Permanent

Injunction was accordingly instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs to protect

their possession through the lessee and from being illegally and forcibly

dispossessed from the land, which was in exclusive and cultivating

possession of their predecessor-in-interest. Alongwith the suit, an

application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.

was also filed. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated

22.10.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra.

Aggrieved thereof, an appeal was filed before the Court of Addl. District

Judge, Kurukshetra. Vide judgment dated 27.01.2022, the said appeal was

allowed and the respondents-plaintiffs were restrained from interfering in

the suit property and from destroying the crops standing therein.

RAJENDER KUMAR

2022.04.23 17:16

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-1294-2022 (O&M)

-3-

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed

the said order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra to contend

that an injunction could not have been granted against a co-sharer and co-

owner. In support thereof, he places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court passed in the matter of T. Ramalingeswara Rao Vs. N.

Madhava Rao bearing Civil Appeal No.3408 of 2019 decided on

05.04.2019 as well as Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of

Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup passed in RS