PURAN SINGH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed thereby setting aside the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

(2.) Brief facts are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction, changing the existing position of land measuring 23 Kanals 6 Marlas as shown in headnote of the plaint without getting the land partitioned. Plaintiff alleged that the land as shown in the plaint is jointly owned and possessed by the parties and they were the co-sharers in the land in dispute. The land in question was not partitioned till such time. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants intended to raise construction on the front portion of Khasra No.9//11/2 which was situated on the road and was a valuable piece of land which was going to be occupied by way of raising construction. The defendants have started digging foundation in Khasra No.18//11/ The entries of land of cultivation in the names of defendants were also claimed to be illegal and against the factual position. The land in question was claimed to be agricultural land and raising of construction on agricultural land by the defendants was claimed to be detrimental to the interests of the parties as the same would amount to change of nature of suit land.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by way of filing written statement on the ground that no injunction can be granted against the co-owner/co-sharer. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff along with his brothers Dharam Singh, Dayal Singh, Randeep Singh and defendant and one Joginder Singh etc. were the joint owners of land measuring about 260 Kanals. Since the year 1970, the plaintiff along with his brothers, said Joginder Singh along with his family members and the defendants were in separate possession of the total land as per their shares. Plaintiff, defendants and other co-sharers were in separate possession as per mutual adjustment/partition effected between them at the time of their forefathers.