NARENDER MITTAL Vs. SURENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Narender Mittal-petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against Surender-respondent/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.4.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, in Civil Suit No.290 of 1.11.2012/21.11.2012 and the order dated 6.9.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Jind, whereby both the Courts below have dismissed the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

(2.) From the record, I find that Narender Mittal-plaintiff filed suit against Surender-defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the peaceful possession of the house and further from demolishing and raising construction over the property presently or in future of which the plaintiff is in possession being co-owner.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is co-owner/cosharer in possession of the suit land with his brother-defendant. Father of the parties constructed a house in the suit land measuring 200 square yards. After the death of their father, both the brothers were allotted their share to the extent of 100 square yards with the consent of family members. It was also orally agreed that the house constructed by their father would not be demolished/divided till that it becomes unsafe for habitation. Both the brothers were living in the suit land. Further, in order to avoid the dispute in future, both the brothers were allotted share to the extent of 100 square yards each, but no specific possession was given to any one. It is stated that the defendant has vacated the said house and started living on rent. The defendant in order to harass and dispossess the plaintiff from the house started demolishing the house without any rhyme and reasons. The defendant even tried to demolish the room in occupation of the plaintiff on 31.10.2012.