SHIV KUMAR Vs. JAGMINDER GOYAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petition filed by the petitioner -plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 7.1.2013 (Annexure P/9) wherein Lower Appellate Court, Karnal allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1/defendant No. 3 and set aside the injunction granted in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff by the trial Court on 2.2.2012 (Annexure P/8).

(2.) THE reasoning given by the Lower Appellate Court was that property was jointly owned by both the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and therefore, being co -sharer plaintiff had no right to seek injunction against the other co -sharer from interfering in the joint possession. The direction which has been issued to pay expenses to the said defendant who is the father of the petitioner and to take care of his medical need was accordingly set aside.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 3 had opposed the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement taking the plea that he was owner of 1/2 share and the said share was owned and possessed by him. It was denied that there was any family settlement in the year 2001 and that the plaintiff was running the business in the shop in question. Rather it was alleged that answering defendant was running his business in the shop. It was alleged that plaintiff and other two defendants had given beating to him and tried to dispossess him and he had also filed DDR No. 40 dated 12.9.2011 and the plaintiff and answering defendant were challaned also under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. The case of the defendant No. 3 that he was running his business under the name and style M/s. Shiv Cloth House in the said shop and that he was having the possession as per his share.