Rattan Singh vs Paramjeet Kaur

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Rattan Singh, by filing this revision petition, has assailed judgment dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Respondent-plaintiff Paramjeet Kaur has filed suit against defendant-petitioner alleging that plaintiff is co-sharer in joint possession of 424 kanals 18 marlas land having purchased part thereof vide three sale deeds dated 10.05.2012, 15.05.2012 and 22.05.2012. The defendant, who is a stranger and has no right, title or interest in the suit land, threatened to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing so. Plaintiff also claimed temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit.

The defendant resisted the suit and the application for temporary injunction and pleaded that he is also co-sharer in the suit land having purchased share therein vide sale deed dated 21.06.2012. Plaintiff is also co-sharer in the suit land. Consequently, plaintiff has no right to seek injunction against the defendant. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned trial court, vide order dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-2), dismissed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction. However, appeal against the said order preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide impugned judgment dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure P-1), and thereby, defendant stands restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land till decision of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition to challenge judgment Annexure P-1 passed by the lower appellate court.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendant-petitioner, also being co-sharer in the suit land, no injunction can be granted against the defendant at the instance of respondent-plaintiff, who is also co-sharer in the suit land.

On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff-respondent contended that plaintiff-respondent has purchased specific part of the suit land and is in exclusive possession thereof and revenue entries are also recorded accordingly, and therefore, temporary injunction has been rightly granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The contention is completely misconceived, meritless and frivolous. No such plea has even been taken in the plaint (Annexure P-3). Consequently, the aforesaid contention being completely beyond pleadings, cannot be allowed to be raised. It may be added that in the plaint, the plaintiff rather pleaded that he is in joint possession of the suit land. Consequently, the aforesaid plea is not only beyond pleadings, but is contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff-respondent.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for plaintiff-respondent contended that the plaintiff-respondent intends to amend the plaint to raise the aforesaid plea. Nothing needs to be commented on this submission because the same is to be considered by the trial court in accordance with law as and when the plaintiff moves for amendment of plaint.

Counsel for the respondent also contended that plaintiff-respondent filed suit on 18.06.2012 and at that time, defendant-petitioner had no right, title or interest in the suit land and subsequent purchase of a very small portion of the joint land by the defendant-petitioner would have no bearing on the matter of temporary injunction. The contention cannot be accepted. The defendant-petitioner purchased the share in the suit land vide sale deed dated 21.06.2012 and has since become co-sharer in the joint land. Courts have to take notice of such subsequent event, which cannot be ignored. Consequently, both the parties being co-sharers in the joint land and the plaintiff alleging his joint possession only, cannot seek injunction against the defendant-petitioner. As regards share in the joint land purchased by defendant-petitioner being small, the plaintiff has not even specified her own share purchased by her in the joint land.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Lower appellate court has gone ahead and granted relief to the plaintiff even beyond her own pleadings. Both the parties being co-sharers, the ends of justice would be met if they are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit land during pendency of the suit.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned judgment (Annexure P1) of the lower appellate court and order (Annexure P-2) of the trial court are modified and in modification thereof, both parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit land during pendency of the suit. Nothing observed herein before shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.