MAHENDER SINGH Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant No.1 from interfering into his possession of 5/82 share of the suit land, was dismissed.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the appellant pleading that he and the proforma defendant Nos.2 to 4 had succeeded 5/82 share in the suit land from their father. Defendant No.1/respondent No.1 purchased 6/201 share in the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 10.07.2003 and now taking advantage of the aforesaid sale deed, the defendant/respondent was bent upon to interfere into his peaceful possession over 5/82 share and also wants to oust them therefrom without any right to do so. Thus, the necessity arose to file this suit. THE suit was contested by defendant/respondent No.1. According to him, he had purchased the 6/201 share from Billu Ram s/o Ram Rattan for a sum of Rs.74,000/-vide registered sale deed dated 10.07.2003 and the execution of the aforesaid sale deed was also attested by the father of the plaintiff himself. It was further submitted that father of the plaintiff had purchased only 5/82 share in the total land measuring 10 kanal 1 marla and all the purchasers with their mutual consent had partitioned the suit land and constructed houses on the land falling to their respective shares. In fact, the plaintiff had constructed the house on the portion more than his share and they had got no concern with rest of the land. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

(3.) IN the present case, a finding has been recorded that there is nothing on record that any act of respondent No.1 who is proved to be in exclusive possession of his portion of the land is adverse or detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff or other co-owners. Moreover, appellant is in possession of excess of his share and is seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his possession. The relief of injunction is discretionary. It is settled that person who is seeking equitable relief must also do equity.