SARDAR SINGH Vs. SALAM PATI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 19th November, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Camp at Rohru in Case No. 2-R/14 of 2010 whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the Defendants-Respondents herein and vacated the stay order granted in favour of the Plaintiff by the learned trial Court.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the parties are joint owners of the suit land. There was one ancestral house on the suit land and this house was demolished by the Defendants. After demolishing the house the Defendants started raising fresh construction. The Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendants have covered some other vacant land in addition to the land under old house. According to the Plaintiff this land and old house being joint the Defendants have no right either to demolish the house or to raise fresh construction thereupon.

(3.) The defence taken by the Defendants was that in fact a family partition had taken place and this house was built by Bangu Ram, who was the father of late Shri Dalip Singh, husband of Defendant No. 1 and father of Defendants No. 2 to 4. According to them this house was constructed about 100 years back and was exclusively used by the Defendants and their family members for the last hundred years. It has also been contended that the Plaintiff has constructed a house in a portion of Khasra No. 56 depicted as Khasra No. 56/1 and his sister has also constructed another house on a portion of Khasra No. 56 depicted as Khasra No. 56/2. The Defendants allege that these houses were constructed by them about 10 years back. The learned trial Court held that since in the revenue record the land and house was shown to be joint the Plaintiff was entitled to grant of interim injunction. The learned lower Appellate Court held that even if it is presumed that the land is joint the fact remains that the joint owners were in possession of separate portions of the suit land and had constructed their houses on separate portions and even if there was no formal partition the Defendants could not be restrained from reconstructing the old house. Against this order the Plaintiff has filed the present petition.