Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. The plaintiffs claims to have purchased the suit land from Resham Kaur wife of late Sohan Singh on 28.4.2000. The mutation of purchase of the property in dispute was sanctioned and their names have been incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 but the defendant, who had no concern with the suit land, claims to be a co-sharer and threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs, hence, the suit is filed.
(2.) In the written statement, it is pleaded by the defendant that he along with plaintiffs and other persons are co-owners in joint possession which is evident from the jamabandi. After issues were framed, the plaintiffs examined Devi Parkash as PW1, Plaintiff No.1 appeared as PW2 and tendered some documents. It is argued by the plaintiffs that they are in exclusive possession over 3 kanals of land purchased from Resham Kaur vide sale deed dated 28.4.2000 (Ex.P1) whereas the sale deed Ex.P2 relied upon by the defendant, would show that they had purchased 7 marlas of land out of the total land showing the specific boundaries and has no concern with the suit land purchased out of different khasra numbers, which has been purchased out of khasra No.222/12(3-0) by the plaintiffs from Resham Kaur.
(3.) On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that he has purchased the land measuring 7 marlas out of the suit land and even from the jamabandi Ex.D1 it is clear that plaintiffs are co-sharers in the suit land along with defendant. The trial Court made the following observation before dismissing the suit:- "From the above discussed evidence, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are in exclusive possession of the suit property. In fact, the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and they have suppressed material fact that the defendant had become a co-sharer in the suit land by way of sale deed Ex.D2 which is dated 19.12.2007 and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on 25.6.2008 but they have not mentioned about the said fact. Further, perusal of the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs Ex.P1 shows that they have purchased 07 kanals of land being 60/403 share out of the total land measuring 20K-3M comprised in khasra No.23//27(0-12), 225/6(0-9), 299/1(0-2), 222/12(3-0), 10//20(8-0), 12/2(3-2), 9//24/2(4-18) bearing kitta No.7 Khata No.735/918, 736/920 from Resham Kaur. It shows that Resham Kaur has sold 03 marlas of land from the above said Khasra numbers and it is also evident that she was not in exclusive possession of the suit land. Therefore, no question arises regarding the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land when their vendor was not in exclusive possession of the same. Similarly, perusal of the sale deed of defendant Ex.D2 dated 19.12.2007 shows that he has purchased 07 marlas of land being 1/12th share out of 4K-3M out of khasra No.23//27(0-12), 225/6(0-9), 22/12(3-0), 299(0-2) from khata No.748/930. Hence it is evident that the defendant has also purchased some portion out of khasra No.222/12(3-0) out of which the plaintiffs are claiming their exclusive possession. Therefore, the defendant has become a co-sharer in the suit land along with the plaintiffs and various other co-sharers. It is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiffs have not placed on record any revenue record to show their exclusive possession. Rather, it is defendant who has placed on record copy of jamabandi Ex.D1 in which it is clearly depicted that there are number of co-sharers in the suit land apart from the defendant and the plaintiffs. Hence adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the plaintiffs. The entire suit land is still joint as per jamabandi Ex.D1. No doubt, a co-sharer is entitled to injunction against other co-sharer provided he is in exclusive possession. In the present suit, it is clearly proved that the plaintiffs are not in exclusive possession of the suit land. Infact, PW1 Devi Parkash in his cross-examination has admitted that the property in dispute has not been partitioned and is still joint. Similarly, plaintiff Nirmal Singh himself while appearing as PW2 in his cross examination has stated that he was not aware as to whether the suit land was partitioned amongst the co-sharers and he has not seen the revenue record of the entire khata." ;