SURENDRA SINGH BISHT Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH BISHT AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Surendra Singh Bisht
Bhagwan Singh Bisht And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 27-8-2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun in Original Suit No. 507 of 2010 Surendra Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh Bisht and others and the judgment/order dated 31-1-2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge/II F.T.C. Dehradun in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2011 Surendra Singh Bisht Vs. Bhagwan Singh Bisht and others (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition). The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to maintain status quo over the property both as regards to possession and title and not to create third party interest over the property in dispute.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing O.S. No. 507 of 2010 Surendra Singh Bisht Vs. Bhagwan Singh Bisht and six others in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun against the defendant-respondents. Both the parties are members of joint Hindu family, which consists of the plaintiff, his parents and his sister. Defendant-respondent nos. 3 to 7 are legal heirs of his sister. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the out of the funds raised 2 by joint Hindu family, the property mentioned in Schedule Ka and Schedule Kha was purchased in the name of defendant no.1 and that plaintiff is the exclusive owner in possession of property mentioned in Schedule Ga and none else has any concern with the said property. It was alleged that the plaintiff has planted different kind of trees thereon; that a family partition took place between the members of the joint Hindu family in the year 1992-93 and as per family partition, property mentioned in Schedule Gha came to the share of the plaintiff-petitioner and he had raised constructions therein and a portion of that property was given to his parents for residential purposes. The plaintiff has apprehension that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with each other are trying to alienate the disputed property so as to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for permanent injunction was filed. In the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction (paper no. 6-C2).
(3.) Before the trial Court, the plaintiff in support of his case has filed his own affidavit along with copy of ration card, voter identity card, bank account, copy of electricity bill, copy of gas connection etc. and copy of sale deed etc. On the other hand, the defendants also filed their objection and filed their affidavit and denied that any partition had taken place as alleged and that the family of defendant no. 1 is not a joint Hindu family. The contention of the plaintiff that property mentioned in Schedule Ka and Kha is joint Hindu family property has been disputed. Defendant no. 1 alleged that the property mentioned in Schedule Ga was purchased by defendant no.1 and he himself had planted trees thereon. The defendant no.1 is the exclusive owner of the disputed property.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.