RANDHIR SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dtd. 17/6/2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by lower Appellate Court, whereby, an appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the order dtd. 11/6/2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), was allowed and consequently, the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and @ CPC, was allowed.

(2.) The facts, as culled out, from the paperbook are that, initially, Om Parkash, son of Moji Ram had filed a suit against Randhir Singh, Maan Singh, Mewa Singh, Vijay Singh, Ramesh and Smt.Santo-defendants, who are the petitioners, in the present revision petition, thereby, seeking issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering into joint possession of the land measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, as per Jamabandi for the year 2013-2014 and further to restrain the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land in any manner and restraining from rasing any type of construction on the suit land and further to restrain them from depriving the plaintiff from the joint possession of the suit land.

(3.) In the suit, it is averred that the agricultural land, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, is joint of the parties and has not been partitioned, so far. The plaintiff had filed an application for partition of the same before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Tosham, which is pending. The suit land is a valuable piece of land and the same abuts on the northern side of the pucca road, which leads from Siwani to Bhiwani. The plaintiff, defendants and other co-sharers are joint owners in possession of the suit land and no one is in specific possession over any part of the suit land. The defendants are bent upon to take forcible possession of the joint land and also bent upon to raise construction on the suit land. They have extended threats to raise construction and to take exclusive possession of the suit land, whereas, the defendants have no right to do so. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed.