HARJIT SINGH Vs. LAKHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land measuring 102 kanals 11 marlas was owned by four brothers namely Harbans Singh, Prabhu Singh, Jagdev Singh and Sarbhu Singh. Each one of them was co-owner to the extent of 25 Kanals 10 marlas. Sarbhu Singh sold 1/6th share to Lakhbir Singh and Balbir Singh sons of Sukhdev Singh, vide registered sale-deed dated 18.2.1988. Subsequently, by an agreement to sell dated 21-3-1988, he agreed to sell the remaining 1/12th share to Sukhdev Singh, father of Lakhbir Singh and Balbir Singh. In the meanwhile the other brothers suffered decree in favour of Harbans Singh and one Navjoginder Singh. Accordingly, as per the decree, sons of Harbans Singh and Navjoginder Singh son of Jagdev Singh became owners of the land belonging to other three brothers. Lakhbir Singh and Balbir Singh were vendees from Sarbhu Singh and Sukhdev Singh who had entered into an agreement to purchase, filed a suit against the sons of Harbans Singh, Parbhu Singh, Jagdev Singh and Navjoginder Singh, restraining them from interfering in their possession, and also from alienating the land on the ground that the decree obtained by them was collusive. The trial Court refused to grant injunction. On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the order of the trial Court and in consequence thereof, respondents were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. This order is being challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parities at length, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision petition. The land in dispute though in the revenue records is shown to be joint, but co-sharers are in separate cultivation of land. On purchase from Sarbhu Singh and on the basis of alleged agreement, the plaintiffs were put into possession by their vendors and their possession is so reflected in Khasra Girdawari. The respondents had approached the revenue Authorities for correction of the entries in the khasra girdawaries, but they failed right upto the Financial Commissioner. In these circumstances, I find that the Additional District Judge rightly found the plaintiffs to be in possession and restrained the defendants from interfering in their possession.