Chet Ram vs Kuldeep Kumar and Kaushlya Devi

Dev Darshan, J.—This petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court challenging the order of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, affirming the order of the learned trial Court dismissing his application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). 2. It is unfortunate that the litigation is between the father as plaintiff, his son and daughter-in-law as defendants. The plaintiff instituted an application in the suit instituted by him before the learned trail Court stating that the defendants be restrained from interfering and dispossessing him from the suit land as described in the application. It was pleaded that he is exclusive owner in possession of the land comprised in khasra No. 19, 61 and 80 measuring 6.01 bighas. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit land and house is a coparcenary and joint Hindu family property and they have every right over it. The suit was contested on a number of grounds including non joinder of necessary parties. The learned trial Court holds that the allegations were made against the petitioner that he was habitual drunkard and had sold some portion of the land and in this eventuality injunction was refused. In appeal, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the application holding that no case for interference is made out.

I had tried to reconcile the matter between the parties but found that respondents had adopted a recalcitrant stand and were not willing to reconcile.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the learned trial Court is in grave error in not granting injunction as prayed and that even if the respondents claim coparcenary interest in the property, at least peaceful possession of the plaintiff requires to be protected. In this eventuality, plaintiff was entitled to the protection by way of temporary injunction.

I cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondents/defendants claims coparcenary rights over the property, the parties are in joint ownership and possession over he suit land and in that eventuality, the property should and ought to be preserved till the time the suit is finally disposed of. In other words, no particular party can claim exclusive ownership of the property. This proposition is now well settled by the High Court of Punjab in Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528 as also by the Supreme Court in Gajara Vishnu Gosavi Vs. Prakash Nanasahed Kamble and Others, and Jai Singh and Others Vs. Gurmej Singh, .

In this eventuality it will be in the fitness of things that this application is disposed of with this direction that the neither party to the proceedings shall alienate or encumber the suit land during the pendency of the suit. It would also be appropriate that the order is passed in these proceedings that the respondents/defendants do not forcibly dispossess the plaintiff/petitioner from the land in his possession. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.