BABRUBHAN Vs. SURENDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby the order dated 05.06.2020 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul granting an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, has been set aside.

(2.) In brief, the facts relevant to the present lis are that one Rohtas son of Matadin was the owner and in possession of 'share of land situated in Village Balh Kalan, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, comprised in KhewatNo.112 Khatoni No.173, Killa No.41//12 (8-0) measuring 8 kanals. Vide sale deed dated 20.11.2000, the said Rohtas sold an area measuring 1 kanal i.e. 20/160th share out of his 1/4th share in favour of Smt. Kamlesh wife of Babrubhan, the plaintiff-petitioner herein, and gave possession of a specific area to the purchaser i.e. Smt. Kamlesh wife of the plaintiff-petitioner. Vide another sale deed dated 20.11.2000, Rohtas sold another 1 kanal i.e. 20/160th share out of his 1/4th share to the defendants-respondents No.1 and 2 herein and gave possession of a specific area to the purchaser i.e. defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though the suit land is un-partitioned, however, the parties to the lis have been enjoying the property in their possession for the last 20 years. The plaintiff-petitioner became co-owner of the suit land to the extent of 1/8111 share by way of a relinquishment deed No.5683 dated 20.03.2020 executed by his wife Smt. Kamlesh in his favour.

(3.) The present suit was instituted on 05.05.2020 by the plaintiff- petitioner against the defendant-respondents seeking a decree of permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant-respondents may not interfere in the area abutting to the National Highway No. 11 in the land comprised in Khewat No. 125 Khatoni No. 141 Mustil and Killa No.41//12 (8-0) and may not change its nature by raising construction and interfere in use and possession of the same jointly without getting it partitioned. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner claims to being owner in possession to the extent of 1/8* share vide relinquishment deed No. 5683 dated 20.03.2020 [however, in the present petition the date of the relinquishment deed has been mentioned as 20.05.2020]. The case set up in the plaint is that the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the co-sharers in the suit property and that the suit property is abutting to National Highway No. 11 and is yet to be partitioned. It is alleged that the defendant-respondents are carrying on construction work on the suit property and hence the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants-respondents from carrying on the construction. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was also filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.