SWAROOP THAKUR Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aggrieved plaintiff, has, through the instant petition, hence cast a challenge, upon, the concurrently recorded verdicts, upon, his application, cast under the provisions, of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, wherethrough, the espoused relief, vis-a-vis, an interim injunction being pronounced, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, rather stands declined qua him.

(2.) The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has contended, with much vigor, before this Court, (i) that, with the suit property being undivided, amongst the contesting litigants, thereupon, in consonance therewith, hence, an, enjoined necessity, stood cast, upon, both the learned courts below, to accord the espoused relief, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, (a) unless cogent material stood therebefore, hence adduced, in display, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, petitioner herein, hence in the joint khata/khasra numbers, raising construction rather beyond or in excess of his share therein, (b) or unless, the defendants also standing displayed rather by apposite cogent material qua theirs' raising construction, upon, a portion, of, purported jointly owned suit property, hence, carrying equivalent, and, comparable monetary value(s), vis-a-vis, the value of the contested portion, of, the purportedly undivided suit property, (c) thereupon, the, declining(s), vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the relief of injunction, would ensure qua equity being balanced, (d) whereas, he contends that with the plaintiff raising construction, within his share, in the undivided suit property, and, also with the defendants, completing constructions, upon, a portion of the suit property, hence, holding co-equivalent monetary value, vis-a-vis, the contested portion, of, the undivided suit property, (e) thereupon, it was un-befitting, for, both the learned courts below, to, decline the espoused relief, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff.

(3.) However, the afore contentions, reared before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are, illusory as (i) there does not exist any material on record, for, hence succouring the afore espoused relief, (ii) rather a perusal of the concurrent verdicts, rendered, by both the courts below, making disclosure(s), qua, given consclusivity, and, finality, standing acquired, vis-a-vis, an earlier pronouncement, recorded, upon, Civil Suit No. 7 of 2011, (iii) and, with the contesting litigants thereat being similar, vis-a-vis, the contesting litigants hereat, (iv) and, also the suit khasra numbers therein, being similar, and, analogous, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, rather hereat, (v) thereupon all the requisite effects, of, the afore conclusive, and, binding verdict, spurring from, the afore similarity(ies) inter-se the thereat pleadings, and, vis-a-vis, the ones' raised in the instant suit, and, in the instant application, hence gain the apt galvanised momentum, (vi) thereupon both the learned courts below, in, recording concurrent verdicts against the plaintiff, and, resting their verdicts, upon, the afore assigned reasons, do not, ovbiously commit any impropriety, (vii) and, the concomitant effect thereof, is qua, when it is also borne out, from the records qua (viii) allotment of the suit land, was hence not made, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, rather through any valid family arrangement, (ix) and, also with the earlier hereto relief of injunction being declined, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, (x) given the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters, holding hence possessions, in the joint khewat, rather in excess, of their shares therein. In aftermath the afore espousals made before this Court, are unmeritworthy, and, hence stand rejected.