HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) APPELLANT - plaintiff filed a suit for separate possession of his share by partition in the joint property and also for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, as also for mandatory injunction. It was alleged that certain piece of land was jointly owned by the appellant ­ plaintiff and the respondents- defendants and that there had been an arrangement between the parties, pursuant to which one part of the joint property was in occupation of the plaintiff and the other in occupation of the respondents- defendants and that the appellant- plaintiff had raised construction upon his portion, while the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? portion of the respondents- defendants was vacant. It was stated that without getting the property formally partitioned, the defendants had started raising construction in such a way as to obstruct that portion of the property, which was agreed to be kept open for passage and for flow of used water / drain water. It was alleged that respondents- defendants had erected certain pillars and intended to raise construction on the pillars in such a way as to cover a portion of that vacant space. Therefore, besides seeking partition, the appellant- plaintiff sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents- defendants from changing the nature of the suit property till partition by metes and bounds had taken place. Relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants- respondents to demolish the pillars erected by them was also sought.

(3.) IT appears that the appellant- plaintiff did not press his plea of partition in view of the objection regarding non-joinder of all co-sharers. It has been admitted during the course of the hearing that another suit for partition has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff. The trial court framed various issues arising out of the pleadings and recorded the evidence led by the parties. Ultimately, the trial court granted decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as also mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff- appellant. Respondents- defendants went in appeal to the court of District Judge. District Judge, has partly accepted the appeal and set aside the decree of mandatory injunction, directing the respondents- defendants to remove the pillars already erected.