In RSA No.1003 of 2020 (O&M)- PUNJ HC- Appellant, being co-sharer, cannot seek relief of permanent injunction against other co-sharers, rules P&H HC Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta [18-05-2022]

Read Order: Jagan Nath (Since deceased) through his LRs v. Sukhdip Kaur & Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, May 20, 2022: While dealing with an appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that the appellant-plaintiff, being a co-sharer, cannot seek the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants (other co-sharers).

The Bench of Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta was considering a case wherein the appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit against the first to the fourth respondents for seeking the decree for a permanent injunction to restrain them (defendants) from interfering in his possession over the suit property and from raising any construction in the same. This suit was dismissed by the Trial Court while the suit filed by the aforesaid defendants against the appellant-plaintiff for restrain him from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit property, was decreed.

The Additional District Judge, Bathinda (‘the lower Appellate Court’) also dismissed the challenge raised by the appellant-plaintiff before it against the Trial Court decision dismissing his suit. Hence the present appeal before the High Court. 

The appellant- plaintiff sought the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants (first four) while averring that he purchased the suit property from Mohan Lal, Harbans Lal Jindal as well as from Shiv Kumar and Madan Gopal vide three different Sale Deeds but the defendants tried to demolish its boundary wall and to take its possession illegally and forcibly. 

Similarly, the respondent-defendants in their suit pleaded that Jaswinder Singh, the husband of the first respondent-plaintiff purchased the suit property from one Ramji Dass and he transferred a part of this property in her (first plaintiff) favour vide a Transfer Deed and sold the remaining part of the same to the second plaintiff and out of the portion so purchased by him, the second plaintiff further sold the land to third and the fourth plaintiffs. 

The Counsel for the appellant (now represented by the LRs) contended that the appellant purchased the suit property, specified by the boundaries and dimensions in the sale deeds and he was in exclusive possession thereof since then and therefore, he was entitled to protect his possession over the same even against the other co-sharers.

However, the Court found that the afore-raised contentions were devoid of any merit because the lower Appellate Court categorically observed that the appellant purchased 10/392 share, 8 ½ /392 share and 8 ½ /392 share in the joint khewat from Mohan Lal, Nathu Ram (Attorney of Shiv Kumar and Madan Gopal) and Harbans Lal respectively and that there was not proved that any partition ever took place between the parties and the co-sharers were allotted and delivered possession of any specific portions of the joint land. 

Further, the Court opined that the appellant could have produced the copies of the relevant khasra girdawaries on the record to show that he or his afore-named vendors were recorded therein to be in settled exclusive possession over the suit property and the same could have clinched the entire matter in dispute between the parties but there was not even a whisper regarding any such document in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.

It being so, the Court was of the opinion that mere mention of the boundaries of the property in the said sale deeds, as executed in favour of the appellant, does not suffice at all to substantiate the above-said fact. In these circumstances, the appellant, being a co-sharer, cannot seek the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-co-sharers, the Court held. 

As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, the Court held that the impugned decisions did not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference by the Court. 

Resultantly, the present appeal was dismissed.