Mahant Ram vs Lal Singh & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

The appellant before this Court filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants/ respondents, on the ground that the suit land was jointly owned by the parties and defendants had no right to occupy valuable portion as also specific portion of the suit land by way of carrying out construction upon the same till the suit land was partitioned by metes and bounds. Said suit was decreed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Suit No.222/1 of 2006, titled as Mahant Ram Versus Lal Singh & others, decided on 23.10.2008.

In appeal, the judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial Court was reversed. Learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.59/13 of 2008, titled as Lal Singh & others Versus Mahant Ram, vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.2011, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by holding that a co­sharer in possession of a portion of joint property was not entitled to seek injunction against other co­sharer, simply on the ground that other co­ sharer was raising construction over joint land.

Feeling aggrieved, appellant/plaintiff filed present appeal, which was admitted on 19.05.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:­

"1. Whether a co­sharer in possession of the suit land is entitled to raise construction without the consent of other co­sharers and without any partition of joint land to the prejudice of other co­sharers in possession?

Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has misconstrued and mis­interpreted Ext.PW­1/A, Ext.PW­ 2/A, Ext.PW­3/A and Ext.P­1?"

When the matter was listed before this Court on 08.04.2011, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status­quo as on that date as existing on said date with regard to nature and possession of the suit property including title.

When the case was thereafter taken up for consideration on 19.11.2019, the following order was passed:­

"When this appeal was taken up for consideration, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that with the efflux of time, the appeal has been rendered infructuous, as the suit land stands partitioned between the parties by metes and bounds.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he may be granted sometime to confirm this fact. On his request, list on 26th November, 2019".

Today, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, apprised the Court that the Partition Proceedings between the parties stand completed by the Competent Authority. The suit property has been partitioned by metes and bounds. The parties have been put in possession of their respective shares.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that as per his instructions, the Partition Proceedings have not yet culminated and the next date now fixed is 04.12.2019 as certain objections have been filed.

Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the Partition Proceedings stand initiated between the parties for the purpose of partition of the property subject matter of the present appeal by metes and bounds. Therefore, as agreed, this appeal is disposed of, with the direction that the parties shall maintain status­quo with regard to nature and possession of the suit property till the objections, which are stated to have been filed by the present appellant, are decided by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.