High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajinder and Another vs Namarta Bahal and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 January 2006 · Citation: (2006) 3 CivCC 76 : (2006) 3 CivCC 76 : (2006) 143 PLR 429 : (2006) 2 RCR(Civil) 556

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashutosh Mohunta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 3260 of 1996
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 353 words

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present revision petition against the order dated 6.8.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonipat, by which their application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. was dismissed.

2.

The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction wherein it was averred that as the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are joint owners of the suit property, therefore, the defendant be restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner till the property is duly partitioned. Before the trial Court, it was prima facie shown by the petitioners that defendant No. 1 has sold 8 kanals and 3 marlas of land comprised in killa No. 12/22 to defendant No. 2 and has also handed over possession of the land. The plaintiffs made out a prima facie case in their favour with regard to the joint ownership over the land in dispute and, therefore, the trial Court restrained the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the specific killa numbers of the suit plot detailed in para 1 of the plaint. However, in revision this order has been set aside. The lower Appellate Court has held that as vacant land has been transferred as per the sale deed, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any injunction.

3.

A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the petitioners were co-sharers on the land in dispute alongwith defendant No. l and the land has not been duly partitioned, therefore, prima facie defendant No. l could not alienate any specific portion of the land in favour of defendant No. 2. The petitioners have made out a prima facie case with regard to their joint ownership with defendant No. 1 in the property in dispute and, therefore, the trial court has rightly granted them injunction.

4.

In view of the above, I set aside the order dated 6.8.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonipat, and direct the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession as well as alienation of the suit land. The trial Court shall decide the case expeditiously, if not already decided.