TARA SINGH Vs. MAGHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Sangrur upholding the view taken by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhuri which is to the effect that the plaintiff- respondent being in exclusive possession is entitled to interim relief of injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally from the suit property till the final decision of the case. The learned trial Court has placed reliance on the entries made in the jamabandi for the year 1998-99 showing that the plaintiff-respondent is co- owner of the suit land and has also been recorded to be in exclusive possession. Reliance has also been placed on the entries made in Khasra Girdwaris from 1989 onwards. On the basis of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the trial Court has raised a presumption in favour of the entries made in jamabandis and considered these entries to be true. The finding of the learned trial Court is discernible from the following extracts of para 6, which reads as under :

(2.) ON the basis of the afore-mentioned finding and placing reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204, it has been concluded that a co-owner, who is in exclusive possession of the property is entitled to protect his possession till partition of the joint holding. The view taken by the learned trial Court has been approved by the learned District Judge by rejecting the argument that if a portion has been shown in the jamabandis as Gair Mumkin Makan in Khasra No. 613 it would not lead to an inference that the defendant-petitioner was in possession of the same.

(3.) IN view of the above, it is evident that a co-owner who is not in possession of part of the property, can not be permitted to dispossess the other co-owner who is in exclusive possession thereof. Therefore, there is no illegality or such an irregularity by the Court, which may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.