RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. RAMRATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Raghbir Singh had filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction against defendants Smt.Sona Devi and Smt.Ramratti on the averments that the plaintiff and defendants are co-sharers in the suit land measuring 273 kanals 14 marlas situated at village Duloth, Tehsil and District Mohinergarh and in order to grab valuable portion of the joint land, the defendants want to raise construction over such valuable portion, which is adjacent to the road and can be used for residential and commercial purposes; they also want to alienate specific portion to which, they have no right. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff had brought suit in question.

(2.) On notice, both the defendants appeared and filed written statements contesting the suit. Issues on merits were framed. The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead their evidence.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 4/11/2014 dismissed the suit. A perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court goes to show that on appreciation of the evidence adduced before it in light of the factual and judicial position, it had been observed that as revealed by perusal of jamabandi for the year 2003-04, defendant No.l is a co-sharer in the suit property and vide sale deed No. 1094 dtd. 6/8/2010 Ex.DW3/B, she alienated her share to defendant No.2 and mutation Ex.D2 reveals that defendant No.2 is the owner in possession of 7 kanals 7 marlas of land. Reference to cross-examination of plaintiff, who appeared as PWl has been given to the effect that wife of Sunda Ram had got share of her husband and now she has alienated the land to defendant No.2 Ramratti and now Ramratti is in possession of the land. He had admitted that all the co-sharers are in possession of the land as per their share. The plea taken by the defendants that land has already been partitioned was rejected for the reason that the same was not got incorporated in the revenue record. The plaintiff was non-suited in light of the ratio of judgment Ram Chander Versus Bhim Singh and others, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 2 (P&H)(FB) dealing with rights and liabilities of the co-sharers in the joint land and in light of Sec. 41(h) Specific Relief Act providing that if an efficacious remedy is available then no injunction can be granted. The trial Court has also referred to judgment by this Court in Kishan Singh Versus Sucha Singh, 2008-2 Latest Judicial Reports 663 to the effect that a suit for injunction is not maintainable where the plaintiff has equally efficacious remedy available and further remedy for getting share in joint property is partition and not injunction.