LEKH RAM Vs. HARI CHAND
LAWS(P&H)-2001-7-92
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 18,2001

LEKH RAM Appellant
VERSUS
HARI CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.L.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision against the order dated 10.4.1999 of Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, whereby he dismissed the defendant's appeal against the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari, dated 5.2.1999, whereby he had directed both the parties to maintain status-quo regarding the existing position and possession of the suit property.
(2.) THIS revision has arisen in the following circumstances :- "Hari Chand son of Lekh Ram, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against Lekh Ram and his sons Nasib Singh and Tejpal to the effect that he is joint owner in equal possession with the defendants with respect to the properties detailed below :- i) 400 poplar and other trees including 11 Shisham and various fruit bearing trees alongwith three tube-wells, embedded and standing in the joint land of the parties comprised in Khewat Nos. 11, 16 to 18 and 50 Khatoni Nos. 14 to 16, 28 to 33 and 104, situated in village Isher Pur (H.B. No. 137); ii) Mortgagee rights with respect to land mortgaged by Shri Satish Kumar and others vide Registered Mortgage Deed No. 4193 dated 4.12.1995; iii) House property purchased from Shri Rameshwar Dass son of Kesho Ram; iv) Live stock consisting of five buffaloes and agricultural implements namely tractor trolley etc., and for separate possession thereof by partition and consequently for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the joint possessory rights of cultivation and removing and cutting any wood of the trees and/or disposing of any joint property without the consent of the plaintiff and changing the existing nature till the joint properties are separated by metes and bounds by partition." It was alleged in the plaint that till 1996, the entire family was joint. House property was purchased in the year 1976 with the income of the ancestral property. Mortgagee rights with respect to the land were also purchased by Lekh Ram defendant. Both properties after purchase were thrown in the joint pool of the parties. Since then, they have been treated as joint undivided properties. Defendants are threatening to alienate and dispose of immovable property. Lekh Ram in his capacity as Karta, divided ancestral land through Civil Suit No. 512 dated 25.10.1996, titled Nasib Singh and others versus lekh Ram, which was decided on 29.3.1997. Each of Nasib Singh, Hari Chand and Tejpal got 1/4th share. Lekh Ram was also left with 1/4th share. So far as other properties are concerned, they were kept joint, meant to be used by all. House property was purchased in the 1976 with the income of ancestral property. Mortgagee rights with respect to the land were also purchased by Lekh Ram. Alongwith, the plaint, the plaintiff made an application for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the joint possessory rights of the cultivation, irrigation, cutting and removing any wood of the trees and/or disposing of any joint property without the consent of the plaintiff and changing the existing nature till the joint holdings were separated by metes and bounds by partition. This application was resisted by defendants urging that the parties had separated themselves and partitioned their ancestral properties. Properties in suit are not joint properties, it is self acquired property of Lekh Ram. In case injunction is granted, defendants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. In case, no injunction as granted, the plaintiff would not suffer any loss or injury as the parties are in separate possession so far as ancestral property is concerned, while self acquired property is in the exclusive possession of Lekh Ram defendant. Vide Order dated 5.2.1999, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari, directed both the parties to maintain status-quo regarding existing position and possession over the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.
(3.) DEFENDANTS went in appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, vide Order dated 10.4.1999. Still not satisfied, the defendants have come up in revision to this Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.