PIARE LAL Vs. JAISHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During, the pendency of the plaintiff's suit, wherethrough, the plaintiff strived for rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, as also, for rendition of a decree for mandatory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, (i) an application, cast under the provisions of Order 39, Rules trial Court, and, the latter proceeded to decline the espoused relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff being aggrieved therefrom, hence, therefrom had instituted an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the latter Court also rather affirmed the verdict recorded, by the learned trial Court. Obviously, the plaintiff being aggrieved therefrom, hence, has through the instant petition, strived to beget reversal, of, the afore concurrent verdicts, pronounced, by both, the learned courts below.

(2.) Uncontrolvertedly, the suit land, is unpartitioned, and, till dismemberment of the joint land is made through metes, and, bounds, (i) thereupto, none of the co-owners, except with the consent of the each other, can proceed to utilise or appropriate, any, portion, of, the undivided suit property, vis-a-vis, their exclusive user(s). However, the afore principle, has certain limitations, and, exceptions, and, the apposite limitations or exceptions are qua the aggrieved plaintiff disturbing equities, by, (a) his also utilizing the valuable, and, best portion of the undivided suit property; (b) his uitilization of the undivided suit property being within his share; (c) defendant also raising construction upon the undivided suit property, and, his also making the afore construction within his share in the undivided suit property; (d) thereupon alike the plaintiff, his being also entitled to utilize the valuable, and, best portion of the undivided suit property, whereupon, hence, the requisite equities, being balanced inter se the plaintiff, and, the defendant.

(3.) For determining, qua the afore excepting principles, vis-a-vis, the cardinal rubric, hence, underlying the principle, of, co-ownership, and, also qua concomitant thereto applicable principles, regulating the granting or refusal of the afore relief, rather being satiated, vis-a-vis, the extant lis, an allusion, is imperative, vis-a-vis, paragraph No.11 of the judgement, rendered by the learned District Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala, upon, C.M. Appeal No. 13-K/DIV/2018, paragraph whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:-