KULDEEP KUMAR Vs. REETA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/2007 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant (plaintiff before learned Trial Court was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the land comprised in Khewat No. 67 Khatauni No. 73 Khasra No. 738/562 measuring 15-9 bighas situated in Mauja Nalag, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). Mandatory injunction for demolition of the structure, if any, raised on the suit land during the pendency of the suit and restoring the vacant possession to the plaintiff was also prayed. It was pleaded that the plaintiff and his brothers are co-owners in possession of the suit land. The co-sharer Rajinder sold 0-3 Bigha of land vide sale deed dtd. 3/12/2003 to the defendant. The defendant being a transferee from a co-sharer can only seek possession by partition. The defendant is out of possession and she is trying to occupy the valuable portion of the suit land. She was requested not to do so but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and the plaintiff being estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. However, it was admitted that the plaintiff is a co-sharer of the suit land. It was specifically denied that the family partition had taken place and the plaintiff and his brothers were allotted the suit land. It was asserted that the co-sharers were necessary parties to the suit land and the present suit is not maintainable in their absence. The suit has been filed for harassing the defendant. The father of the plaintiff had also executed a sale deed of 9 biswa in favour of the father-in-law of the defendant on 8/2/1994. The suit has been filed without any basis; hence, it was prayed that the same be dismissed.