On January 13, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, observed that even a co-sharer could not be injuncted from selling his share of the property even though the property was sold by the way of a specific khasra number and the same would be tantamount to an alienation only of a share by the co-sharer.
Brief Facts:
The appellant filed a suit for a permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from raising any construction over any specific portion of the suit property and also from alienating any specific portion of the suit property on which it was alleged that the parties were co-sharers and the appellant had 2/4 share in the same. It was further averred that the suit property was meant for commercial purposes and the same was abutting the Nizampur Road and the defendant-respondents were adamant to raise construction over the portion of the suit property abutting the Nizampur Road without getting the same partitioned. Respondent Nos.1, 2, and 5 denied that the suit property was joint property and it was stated that the property was partitioned by the sons of Ram Bhagat, namely, Deen Dayal, Kishori Lal, Raghbir Singh, and Brij Lal in the year 1991. It was further averred that during the partition, the portion of the suit property shown in red, yellow, blue, and orange colors respectively in the site plan fell to the share of Raghubir Singh, Deen Dayal, Kishori Lal, and Brij Lal, and the property shown green in the site plan was kept joint for the common purposes. It was further averred that subsequently the sons of Deen Dayal also partitioned the land which fell in their share on 30.05.2002 and that the property shown with letters PORQ fell to the share of the appellant. The Trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2013 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed which was also dismissed, giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the partition was not reflected in the jamabandies and once the partition was affected, permitting the co-sharers to raise construction to the detriment of the appellant would harm the interest of the appellant and hence the suit was ought to be decreed.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that the appellant did not produce on the record the latest jamabandies at the time of filing of the suit and the jamabandi produced by him was for the year 1989-1990 while the suit was filed by him on 19.01.2007. Moreover, the appellant had to prove his own case by adducing oral and/or documentary evidence and he, in his cross-examination admitted that walls were constructed over separate portions of the suit property and the same was constructed in the year 2002.
The court further observed that a co-sharer could not be injuncted from selling his share of the property even though the property was sold by the way of a specific khasra number and the same would tantamount to an alienation only of a share by the co-sharer. Additionally, the appellant was not able to serve any evidence which would show that the construction, if any, raised by the respondents was to his detriment.
The Decision of the Court:
The appeal being devoid of any merit was dismissed by the court.
Case Title: Jitender Kumar Vs. Maan Singh & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Alka Sarin
Case No.- RSA-6917-2016 (O&M)
Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :