JHABE RAM Vs. MAHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi whereby he has affirmed the order dated 27.9.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. IV, Mandi in C.M.A. No. 92/2010 in Civil Suit No. 66/2010.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioners -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs ' for convenience sake) have instituted a suit for declaration as well as permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent -defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant ' for convenience sake) on the ground that they were joint owners of the land detailed in the plaint. Case of the plaintiffs is that they are joint owners in possession of the land detailed in the plaint. The plaintiffs are sons of Khem Dass son of Bhadru. Khem Dass had two more brothers, namely, Rattanu and Moti. Rattanu was unmarried and died issueless. There were total 252 shares in the land. Half share was in the joint ownership and possession of one Smt. Dolu and others and other half share, i.e. 126 shares were owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, defendant and other co -sharers. Earlier 126 shares were owned and possessed by Khem Dass, Rattanu and Moti in equal share, i.e. 42 shares each. The plaintiffs have claimed the share of Rattanu on the basis of will dated 21.4.1986. It is alleged that after the death of Rattanu, Moti got mutation of Rattanu 'sshare on the basis of inheritance. Moti sold his share alongwith the share of Rattanu to the defendant, namely, Mahender Singh on 23.10.1996. The plaintiffs acquired knowledge of the sale deed in the first week of January, 2010. The plaintiffs have also moved an application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that they have very good prima facie case, balance of convenience was also involved and irreparable loss and injury would cause to them if the defendant is not restrained from his illegal acts. The plaintiffs have also prayed that the defendant be restrained from attestation of mutation in his favour, from changing the nature of the suit land, encumbering, selling or alienating the suit land.

(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the application on 27.9.2010. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 29.8.2011.