In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2375 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: July 17, 2009
Sube Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Pradeep Kumar and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. J.V. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N. Jindal, J
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
7.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari dismissing
the appeal of the petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') against
the order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Rewari, dismissing the application for temporary injunction.
Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner to the extent of 3/10 share
in the land measuring 38 kanals 13 marlas and he became owner of 3/20
share vide mutation No.146 sanctioned on 19.6.2007. The defendants No.3
and 4 are also co-sharers. It was further averred that about 25 years back,
there was a family arrangement between the parties wherein a portion
shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint came to his
share, whereas, the portion shown in the green colour fell in the share of
defendant No.4 and the portion shown in purple colour came in the share of
defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 sold the part of the land vide sale deed
dated 2.4.2008 to defendants No.1 and 2 without disclosing about the said
partition. On being threatened by defendants No.1 and 2/respondents to
dispossess him from the land shown in the red colour, the suit has been
filed.
The defendants No.1 and 2 resisted the suit stating that the
plaintiff, performa defendants and the defendants No.1 and 2 are the co-
sharers in the entire suit property. Though the plaintiff had purchased 3/20
share out of the Khewat No.199, but he never came in possession of the land
comprised in rec. No.43 Killa No.24. The oral partition if any does not find
Civil Revision No. 2375 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
***
mentioned in the revenue records and it was never acted upon. After
examining the record, the trial court dismissed the application for ad-interim
injunction. The appeal against the said order also met the same fate.
Parties admittedly are the co-sharers. No partition in black and
white has taken place. The alleged oral partition was never acted upon. No
co-sharer can seek injunction against the other co-sharer. The co-sharer
who is purchaser had got no legal right to dispossess the other co-sharer
without getting the land partitioned by competent revenue officer, however,
he steps into the shoes of the co-sharer.
As such, both the courts below took the right view and declined
to grant injunction.
No grounds to interfere.
Dismissed.
July 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge