Labh Singh vs Ram Singh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Appellant herein filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the present respondents, inter alia, on the ground that plaintiff and defendants were joint owners in possession of the suit land, i.e., Khasra No. 535, comprised in Khewat No. 34, Khatauni No. 41 min, measuring 0­12­8 bighas, situated in Muhal Khilra/28, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Plaintiff was having 1/3rd share in the suit land. Defendants without any rhyme or reason were causing unlawful interference in the suit land by trying to raise construction over the most valuable portion thereof. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2016 by inter alia holding that the act of the plaintiff himself of raising construction over the disputed land and denying construction to defendant No. 1, which admittedly was in possession of defendant No. 1, could not be termed to be an equitable act, therefore, plaintiff was not having any cause of action in his favour praying for the reliefs, as mentioned in the suit. Learned Trial Court also held that as it was not in dispute that the parties were co­owners, therefore, it was not open to anybody to dispute the arrangement as it existed without the consent of others and without filing a suit for partition.

The judgment and decree so passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld by the learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2016, titled as Labh Singh Vs. Ram Singh and others, decided on 18.05.2018.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal.

The Court has been apprised that during the pendency of this appeal, the partition proceedings, which stood initiated between the parties, stand decided and Khasra number in issue in the partition proceedings has now fallen to the share of the present appellant and respondents No. 3 and 4 and no part of the suit land has by way of partition fallen in the share of respondents No. 1 and 2.

In my considered view, as now the suit land has fallen to the share of the present appellant as well as respondents No. 3 and 4 and no part of the same has fallen in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2, as has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant, no order is required to be passed in this appeal, save and except that the efficacy of the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, loses significance for the reason that now the suit land stands duly partitioned. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.