VINOD KUMAR Vs. KHEM DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent orders passed by the learned courts below declining his prayer for grant of an ad interim injunction pending suit.

(2.) BEREFT of details facts of the case are that out of a big chunk of joint land holding, the petitioner had purchased land measuring 2.19 bighas, bearing khasra No. 910/765 from S/Sh. Dharam Dutt and Bisham Dutt, who are defendants No.7 and 8 before the learned trial court. Respondents No.1 to 5 (defendants No.1 to 5) were also co-sharers in the aforesaid joint land alongwith the said S/Sh. Dharam Dutt and Bisham Dutt (defendants No. 7 and 8) and Arun Kumar and etc., who have been impleaded as defendants No. 10 to 13 in the suit. Admittedly, after the petitioner purchased a share in the joint land to the extent of 2.19 bighas, the joint holding was partitioned. During partition, the petitioner was allotted land measuring only 2.15 bighas, there being decrease of 4 biswas, may be owing to decrease in the total area of the joint khata, as a result of some intervening events such as consolidation/settlement proceedings having been carried out in the area, in which event proportionate decrease in the area allotted to other co-sharers can also not be ruled out. However, according to the petitioner neither his predecessor-in-interest had disclosed the factum of ongoing partition proceedings nor he had any knowledge thereof.

(3.) THE petition stands disposed of in the above terms. As records of the learned trial court have not been requisitioned, let a copy of this judgment be sent to the said court forthwith for information and compliance.