Civil Revision No.4019 of 2009 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4019 of 2009
Date of Decision: 22.7.2009
Darshan Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Roor Singh and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession
under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, alleging themselves to be
in peaceful, open and continuous possession of the suit property for more
than 50 years as owners. It was alleged that on 10.11.2004, the defendant
trespassed the suit land and destroyed the hut of the plaintiffs and removed
the diesel engine which led to the filing of the present summary suit for
possession.
In the written statement, the stand of the defendant-petitioner
was that a suit challenging the sale deed dated 19.3.2004 is pending in
which an order of status quo was passed. The defendant denied the
possession of the plaintiff. It was alleged that sisters of Persini, namely,
Civil Revision No.4019 of 2009 (2)
Dhammo and Dhanno, executed a sale deed in favour of the present
petitioner and delivered possession of their share of the land to the
defendant and, thus, he is in possession of the suit land as owner thereof.
The learned trial Court has found that the revenue records i.e.
Jamabandis for the years 2002-03 (Exhibit P.1); 1992-93 (Exhibit P.3) and
1987-88 (Exhibit P.4), show that Persini; Dhanno and Dhamo were in
possession of the equal share and the property was mortgaged with one
Jaswant Rai. It was found that one Santa Singh, father of plaintiff No.1 and
husband of plaintiff No.2, is recorded as a person in possession, which
possession is reflected in the revenue record. Khasra Girdawari for the year
2003-07, reflects change of in the name of Darshan Singh. It was, thus, held
that Santa Singh was in possession of the suit property as Gair Marusi and
after his death, the plaintiff came in possession of the suit property. It was
only in the year 2007, the possession of defendant is recorded.
The defendant is claiming possession over the suit property in
pursuance of the sale deed allegedly executed by a co-sharer. Sale of an
undivided share by co-sharer will not entitle the vendee to take forcible
possession of the suit property.
Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court,
cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted, which may warrant interference
by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
22-07-2009
ds