Parkash And Others vs Mange Ram And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12506 P&H

                   RSA-345-2020 (O&M)                [1]                       2023:PHHC:107245




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                              AT CHANDIGARH

                                                           RSA-345-2020 (O&M)
                                                   Date of Decision: August 09, 2023

                   Parkash and others                                      ........ Appellants

                                                      Versus

                   Mange Ram and others                                  ......... Respondents

                   CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

                   Present:-      Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

                                                        ****
                   HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the

judgments and decrees dated 07.03.2015 and 19.12.2018 passed by

the courts below; whereby a suit for permanent injunction for

restraining respondents No.1 & 2 from alienating the suit property as

well as interfering in the possession of appellants-plaintiffs, has been

dismissed.

2. Very briefly, the appellants-plaintiffs, claiming themselves

to be owner in possession of half share of suit land measuring 219

kanals 1 marla, situated in Village Chulkana, Tehsil Samalkha District

Panipat filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer for

restraining respondents-defendants 1 & 2 from alienating the suit land

in favour of respondent-defendant no. 3 and from interfering in their

possession. It was pleaded in the plaint that the respondents-

defendants No. 1 & 2 were claiming themselves to be owner to the

extent of half share in the suit property being successors of one

SANJAY GUPTA 2023.08.21 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-345-2020 (O&M) [2] 2023:PHHC:107245

Chandgi who was allegedly adopted by Sunda. It was also pleaded

that the suit land was still joint and partition proceedings were going

on and thus they could not make alienation or interfere in the

possession of appellants.

3. In response, two sets of written statements were filed on

behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively. Respondent No.2, in

his written statement stated that he along with respondent No.1 was

owner to the extent of half share of the suit property; whereas

plaintiffs no. 1 to 4 and plaintiffs nos. 5 to 8 along with respondent

No.4 owned 1/4 each. It was further stated that being co-sharer

respondent No.2 had every right to alienate his share. It was also

pleaded that during pendency of the suit, a portion of his share was

also sold to respondent-defendant No.3 vide registered sale deed

against consideration. On the other hand, respondent-defendant No.3

pleaded himself to be bona fide purchaser.

4. Learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated

07.04.2015 decreed the suit partly to the extent of restraining

respondents 1 & 2 from alienating 1/8th share of the suit property,

which was inherited by them from Hira, besides it, the prayer for grant

of injunction qua their half share was declined. Aggrieved thereof, the

appellants filed first appeal, the same was dismissed vide judgment

and decree dated 19.12.2018.

5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees

passed by the Courts below, present appeal has been filed.

SANJAY GUPTA 2023.08.21 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-345-2020 (O&M) [3] 2023:PHHC:107245

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone

through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the

submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.

From the pleadings and evidence available on record, it

has been established that Chandgi was adopted by Sunda and

inherited his one half share. The adoption was proved and upheld in

previous litigation between the parties which had attained finality.

Post adoption, Chandgi became coparcener in the adopted family,

having severed all his ties with the natural family. Consequently,

respondents-defendants No. 1 & 2 became owners in possession of

half share being the legal heirs of Chandgi and thus, could not be

restrained from alienating their share.

7. Rightly decided by the Courts below of having been

adopted by Sunda, Chandgi was not entitled to inherit share from his

natural father and thus, respondent-defendants 1 & 2 were not

entitled to claim any right to that extent. The case set up by the

appellants-plaintiffs during arguments that they were owner in

possession of 3/4 share of the suit property was even against their

own pleadings in the plaint, wherein they claim themselves to be

owners of 1/2 share. Moreover, no injunction can even be granted

against the co-sharer and thus the suit was rightly declined.

8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and the

concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below in a suit for

permanent injunction, there being no illegality or infirmity in the

SANJAY GUPTA 2023.08.21 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-345-2020 (O&M) [4] 2023:PHHC:107245

judgments passed by the Court below, the appeal is resultantly

dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

                   August 09, 2023                    ( HARKESH MANUJA )
                   sanjay                                   JUDGE
                                Whether speaking/reasoned   Yes/No
                                       Whether Reportable          Yes/No




SANJAY GUPTA
2023.08.21 12:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document