JOGINDER SINGH Vs. BHAGAT RAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff"), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 21.06.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2002, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 25.05.2002, passed by the then Senior sub-Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in case No. 101/1 of 1999, was set aside.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents, who were the defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter to the called as "the defendants") for permanent prohibitory injunction with regard to the land, measuring 2-6 bighas, comprising in khewat No. 43, khatauni No. 49, khasras No. 29, 70, 80, 170 and 292, situated at Village Sai Fardian, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., as per Jamabandi for the year 1995-96 (hereinafter to be called as "the suit land"). As per the plaintiff, the suit land is owned and possessed by him and the defendants have no right, title and interest over the same. The plaintiff has further alleged that on 18.06.1999, the defendants tried to cut trees from the suit land, in order to dispossess him from there and though he requested them not to interfere in the suit land, however they refused, hence he filed the suit for injunction against them.

(3.) The defendants, by filing written statement, denied the contents of the plaint. It has been further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff is not sole owner of the suit land, but he is one of the coparcener alongwith defendants No. 1, 3, Hiru, Naratu Ram, Keshav, Vinod Kumar, Jitender Kumar, Anil Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Ram Pal, Dwarka Devi, Ram Piari, Beasan Devi, Rattani Devi, Roshani Devi and Vidya Devi, who are also stated to be coowners in the suit land. It is has been further stated that defendant No. 1, Bhagat Ram is managing the suit land as co-sharer being head of family and the plaintiff has only 1/12 share in the suit land, which he can get after partition of the land, thus the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that a co-sharer cannot restrain other cosharers from exercising their rights over the joint property.