Punjab-Haryana High Court
Banarsi Devi vs Ramotar on 31 August, 2023
2023:PHHC:114312
133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-3206-2023
DECIDED ON: 31.08.2023
BANARSI DEVI
soeee PETITIONER
VERSUS
RAMOTAR
saves RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been filed against the
judgment/order dated 24.04.2023, whereby the Court of Additional District
Judge, Bhiwani (Appellate Court) affirmed the order dated 14.03.2023, of
allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by respondent-
plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff-Ramotar filed a suit for permanent injunction against
Mrs. Banarsi Devi-defendant (petitioner herein) on the ground that the land
in question which is comprised in khewat No.5/5, khatoni No.5, khasra/killa
Nos.51//25(7-14)-64//4(8-0)-5(8-0)-67//3/2(4-0)-8(8-0)-13(8-0)-14/1(6-0)-
83//3(6-0)-4/1(0-12)-8(8-0), total 63K-6M situated at Village Roopgarh,
Tehsil and District Bhiwani is jointly owned and possessed by plaintiff and
defendants. As per Jamabandi for the year 2021-2022, property is claimed to
be ancestral and plaintiff himself claims to be in possession, being a co-
sharer along with his brothers in khasra/killa No.67//18. It is also pleaded
that defendant is a subsequent purchaser from one of the brother of the
plaintiff namely-Dharambir. The area purchased by him is 3K-0M vide
registered sale deed No.2608 dated 21.06.2016.
MOHIT
rte Ine decuracypand The only argument addressed by the counsel is that three of the
| attest to the accurac'
integrity of this document
CR-3206-2023 -2- 2023: PHHC:114312
brothers of Dharambir, who sold 3 kanals of area to the defendant, have
already executed their affidavit, saying no objection while giving
mentioning specific killa number out of the joint holding of the land in
favour of the defendant. Therefore, defendant submits that he is free to raise
construction over the specific portion purchased by him.
4. In this regard, Court has considered the aspect that land is
jointly owned and possessed by the co-sharers and has also observed that as
per settled law, every co-sharer has to make use of the joint land in a manner
that it will not be inconsistent with the rights of other co-sharers. The total
land which is jointly owned and possessed by the co-sharers is 63 kanals 6
marlas and defendant being a subsequent purchaser had purchased only 3
kanals 0 marlas of the land from one of the co-sharer-Dharmabir with a
description of specific land falling in khasra No.67//13-14/1 alongwith
demarcation of the all sites. Reliance placed upon the affidavit executed by
the other brothers is also of no value because there are other co-sharers also,
as their names are reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 2021-2022. In
none of the revenue record, Dharambir (vendor of the defendant) is shown to
be in exclusive possession of any part of the co-sharer's property, for which
he could have claimed the physical possession and could have been handed
over it to the purchaser of the land i.e. defendant in the present case.
5. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through
the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order as the same has been passed in true spirit of law in regard to
the law of injunction qua the land owned and possessed by the co-sharers.
Thus, the impugned order is maintained.
6. Present revision petition stands dismissed.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
31.08.2023 JUDGE
Mohit Bishnoi
Whether speaking/reasoned _ Yes/No
MOHIT Whether reportable Yes/No
2023.09.01 10:55
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
