NEW INDIA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Vs. DESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.1.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon vide which the learned appellate Court has issued injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent to the following effect :-

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it was not open to the learned lower appellate Court to reverse the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in view of the fact that petitioners in pursuance to the purchase of land from Nathi Ram and Inder Pal wherein exclusive possession of 22 kanals of land and on the basis of said sale they were granted licence by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for development of area and they have spent huge amount for the said purpose. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have themselves filed a suit for partition of joint holdings. It is further not in dispute that the land has been acquired out of the joint holding of the co-sharers and compensation regarding this has been paid by the State of Haryana which is yet to be disbursed. In this view of the matter no error can be found with the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the land as well as compensation which is to be finally adjudicated as per the decision in the partition proceedings taken out by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh, 2000(3) RCR(Civil) 70 : AIR 2001 P&H 112 to contend that it was not open to the plaintiff- respondents to seek injunction as they were in exclusive possession of the property as co-owner. However, this judgment does not support the case of the petitioners as in that very judgment this Court has been pleased to hold that a co-owner can seek injunction if the act of co-owner amounts to ouster or is adverse to interest of co-owner who is out of possession. In the present case, part of the property has been acquired and it is yet to be decided as to what part would go to the respective parties. The claim of the petitioners would prima facie be prejudicial to the interest of other co-owner.