(CNR No.

HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-1- (CS-70-2019)

IN THE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
AT INDRI (KARNAL)
PRESIDED OVER BY MADHUR BAJAJ
(UID NO. HR0373)

Civil Suit No. 69 of 2019.

Regd. No. CS/70/2019.
CNR No. HRKRB0-000090-2019.
Date of Institution: 14.03.2019.
Date of Decision: 07.08.2024.

1. Ranjit Singh,

2. Daljit Singh, sons of Sh. Harbansh Singh,

3. Balbir Kaur (now deceased) through her legal heirs i.e. plaintiffs no. 1

& 2.

...…Plaintiffs.

Versus

1. Darbara Singh, son of Sh. Ujjagar Singh,

2. Salinder Kaur, wife of Sh. Jasbir Singh, both residents of village

Gorgarh, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

…....Defendants.

*****

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Present: Shri B.P. Gupta counsel for the plaintiffs.

Shri Samay Singh Jatain counsel for the defendants.

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-2- (CS-70-2019)

J U D G M E N T:-

T he present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against

defendants seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction, restraining the

defendants from raising any type of construction over the specific portion of

land comprised in khewat no. 56, khatoni no. 78, killa no. 166(0-16) gair

mumkin bara, khatoni no. 79, rect. no. 25, killa no. 22/14(0-2) gair mumkin

gadha khad, khewat no. 57, khatoni no. 80, rect. no. 28, killa no. 11(7-12),

12(8-16), 19(4-8), 20/1(4-13), 20/2(0-4), 20/3(2-15), rect. no. 29, killa no.

16/1(3-0), khatoni no. 81, rect. no. 28, killa no. 1(7-6), khatoni no. 82, rect.

no. 28, killa no. 2/3 (2-0), 9min(2-0), 10(7-12), khatoni no. 83, rect. no. 28,

killa no. 8(5-4), 9min(6-0), situated in the revenue estate of village Gorgarh,

Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, vide jamabandi for the years 2013-14 and

mutation no. 1259 (hereinafter referred as ‘Suit property’) ; from alienating

the suit property; and from delivering the possession of the specific portion

of the suit property, till its partition.

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that previously, no suit except a

petition for partition of the suit property before Ld. Assistant Collector II nd

Grade, Indri and a civil suit which was dismissed as withdrawn on technical

grounds on 09.03.2019 with permission to file fresh suit was instituted or

decided between the parties to the present suit. It is further averred that

father of the plaintiffs was recorded to be owner-in-possession of 209/1248

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-3- (CS-70-2019)

share in the suit property and after the death of his father, suit property/land

in question has been inherited by them by virtue of mutation no. 1259. The

suit property is still joint and the partition proceedings with respect to said

land is pending before Ld. Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Indri (Karnal). It is

further averred that suit property/land has not so far been partitioned

between the parties and they are in cultivating possession of the said land

jointly, as per their sharers.

It is further averred that defendants are adamant are bent upon

to alienate the suit property and want to raise construction on the prime

location of the land, for which they have no right, title or interest to raise

construction thereon as the same is still joint. Defendants, being co-sharers

in the suit property, has no right to alienate or transfer the valuable portion of

the land, till its partition. In case, defendants succeed in raising construction

as well as alienating the valuable portion of the suit property, plaintiffs shall

suffer irreparable loss as the value of the front portion of the suit property is

very much high as compared to the backside portion. Thereafter, plaintiffs

requested the defendants several times, not alienate the suit property and not

to raise any construction thereon, till the partition of the suit property/land,

but defendants did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the plaintiffs.

It is for this cause of action, present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs

against the defendants, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-4- (CS-70-2019)

3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed their written

statement. In their written statement, answering defendants raised

preliminary objections that present suit is not maintainable, plaintiffs are

having no locus standi and cause of action, suit of the plaintiffs is bad for

mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties, present suit is not properly valued

for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, suppression of true and

material facts etc.

On merits, it is averred by the defendants that land in question

has already been partitioned between the co-sharers by metes and bound,

since long time and the father-in-law of defendant no. 2 purchased land

measuring 1 kanal 0 marla, out of land measuring 62 kanal 8 marla from one

Geja Singh vide Sale Deed no. 475/1 dated 30.05.1986 and possession

thereof was handed over by the seller to the purchaser in specific rect. no.

28, killa no. 1. It is further submitted that Geja Singh and Darbara Singh

sold land measuring 1 kanal 7 marla to Kuldeep Singh vide Sale Deed no.

1713/1 dated 12.02.1987 and thereafter, Paramjieet Singh and Jasbir Singh

sold land measuring 14 marla to Kuldeep Singh vide Sale Deed no. 866/1

dated 17.08.1999 and gave possession in khasra no. 28, killa no.1.

Thereafter, Geja Singh, Darbara Singh and Jasbir Singh sold land measuring

1 kanal 0 marla vide Sale Deed no. 1050/1 dated 11.10.1999 and gave the

possession in specific khasra no. 28, killa no. 1. It is further submitted that

Darbara Singh and Balkar Singh also sold land measuring 1 kanal 2.25 marla

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-5- (CS-70-2019)

to defendant no. 2 vide Sale Deed no. 4110/1 dated 30.03.2016 and gave

possession in specific khasra no. 28, killa no. 1. As such, defendant no. 2 and

his family members became owners-in-possession of total land measuring 5

kanal 3¼ marla in the land in question and possession in specific khasra no.

28, killa no. 1 is with defendant no. 2 and his family members, which has

not been made party in the present suit.

It is further submitted that defendant no. 2 and his family

members have raised boundary wall over land measuring 5 kanal 3¼ marla

in rect. no. 28, killa no. 1 and constructed their residential house and cattle-

shed etc., in the said land since long time, without any interference or

interruption from any corner. Similarly, defendant no. 1 constructed his

residential house in the remaining land comprised in rect. no. 28, killa no. 1,

since long time. Denying other averments, answering defendants have

prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. No replication was filed. On the basis of pleadings of the

parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide

order dated 30.05.2019:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
permanently from raising any type of construction
over the specific portion of the suit land and from
alienating and delivering the possession of specific
front portion of the suit land till final partition of the

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-6- (CS-70-2019)

suit land, as claimed in the body of plaint? OPP

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the
present form? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and no
cause of action to file the present case? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act
and conduct from filing and maintaining the present
suit? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Whether the present suit is not properly valued for the
purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
7. Relief.

5. In order to prove the case, the following evidence was led by

the plaintiffs:-

ORAL EVIDENCE

1. Evidence of Ranjit Singh as PW1.

2. Evidence of Ashish (Clerk) as PW2.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Ex. P1 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2018-19

Ex. P2 Copy of mutation no. 1259
Ex. P3 Aks-sizra
Ex. PW2/A Copy of plaint of case no. 01/P/T dated
01.02.2019, titled Ranjit Singh & Ors. vs.
Darbara Singh & Ors.” filed before Ld.
Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Indri (Karnal)
Ex. PW2/B Copy of Order dated 18.09.2020 passed by
Ld. Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Indri
(Karnal)
Mark-A to
Mark-C Photographs

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-7- (CS-70-2019)

6. On the other hand, the following evidence was led by the

defendants:-

ORAL EVIDENCE:-

1. Evidence of Darbara Singh as DW1.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE :-

Ex. D1 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2018-19

Ex. D2 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2018-2019
Mark-D to
Mark-F Photographs
Mark-G Copy of Sale Deed no. 475/1 dated
30.05.1986
Mark-H Copy of mutation no. 797
Mark-I Copy of Sale Deed no. 1713/1 dated
12.02.1987
Mark-J Copy of mutation no. 785
Mark-K Copy of Sale Deed no. 866/1 dated
17.08.1999
Mark-L Copy of mutation no. 937
Mark-M Copy of Sale Deed no. 1050/1 dated
11.10.1999
Mark-N Copy of mutation no. 974
Mark-O Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04
Mark-P Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04
Mark-Q Copy of register Patwari

7. It is necessary to discuss the evidence adduced on behalf of the

parties, in brief:-

PW1 Ranjit Singh (plaintiff no.1) tendered affidavit Ex. PW1/A

vide which he reiterated the facts of the plaint. In his cross-examination, he

deposed on the lines of the plaint. PW2 Ashish (Clerk) brought the

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-8- (CS-70-2019)

summoned record and tendered copy of application Ex. PW2/A and copy of

order Ex. PW2/B, which are true and correct as per record.

Thereafter, Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs tendered

documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 and closed the evidence of the plaintiffs vide his

separately recorded statement dated 16.02.2024.

8. On the other hand, defendants got examined following

witnesses:-

DW1 Darbara Singh (defendant no. 1) tendered affidavit Ex.

DW1/A vide which he reiterated the facts of the written statement. He also

tendered documents Ex. D1, Ex. D2, Mark-D to Mark-F and Mark-G to

Mark-Q in his evidence. In his cross-examination, he deposed on the lines of

the written statement.

Thereafter, Learned Counsel for defendants closed the evidence

of defendants vide his separately recorded statement dated 18.05.2024.

9. No rebuttal evidence was adduced and same has been closed by

Court order of even date.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that revenue

records i.e jamabandi Ex. P1 and mutation Ex. P2 placed on record shows

and point out that the parties to the present suit are the joint owners of suit

property. It is also not denied by the defendants that plaintiffs are joint

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-9- (CS-70-2019)

owners of the suit property. It is the stand of the defendants that suit property

has already been partitioned by way of metes and bounds. However, no

evidence has been adduced on record to that effect. In case, the defendants

are successful in alienating the plaintiffs from the suit property and in raising

construction over the specific portion of the suit property, then the same

would cause great loss to the plaintiffs. Reliance is placed upon “Ram

Rattan and others vs. Gurmail Singh” reported in RSA no. 2234 of 2016

(O&M), Date of Decision: 22.05.2017, “Om Parkash and others vs. Gram

Panchayat, village Nahri and others” reported in CR No. 1919 of 2021

(O&M), Date of Decision: 29.04.2023, “Swaran Singh vs. Manjit Kaur”

reported in Civil Revision No. 6096 of 2022 (O&M), Date of Decision:

21.12.2022, “Harvinder Singh vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr.” reported in

2018 (Suppl.) CCC 438 (P&H), “Gayatri Devi & Ors. Vs. District Judge

& Ors.” reported in 2020(2) CCC 442 (Allahabad), “Ashok Kapoor vs.

Murtu Devi” reported in 2018 (Suppl.) CCC 749 (H.P.) and “Nand

Kishore vs. Jugal Kishore (deceased) through his LRs & Ors.”

reported in 2018(2) CCC 514 (P&H). Accordingly, decreetal of the present

suit is prayed for.

11. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the defendants has

argued that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case. There is no

evidence on record which would show and point out that suit property is

jointly owned by the parties to the present suit. Suit property has already

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-10- (CS-70-2019)

been partitioned way back between the parties. Even otherwise, if it is

presumed that the parties to the suit still jointly own the suit property then

also no injunction can be granted in favour of a co-sharer against another co-

sharers. Reliance is placed upon “Manoj Singh vs. Paramjit Singh”

reported in 2019(4) CCC 350 (P&H), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court that sale of land by a co-sharer of property

which is in his exclusive possession is subject to adjustment at the time of

partition. Raising construction or improvement in the area purchased by him,

even though it is common property, would not be detrimental to the interest

of other co-sharers. So relief of injunction is not available to plaintiffs.

Accordingly, dismissal of the present suit is prayed for.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and

having perused the case file and evidence on record carefully, my issue-wise

findings are as under:-

ISSUE NO. 1:

13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. In the

present case, plaintiffs have averred that suit property is joint property of the

parties to the present suit. The defendants have disputed said fact as they

have asserted that the suit property was already partitioned by metes and

bounds among the parties to the present suit. In order to prove the case,

plaintiffs have examined Ranjit Singh as PW1. It is admitted by plaintiff

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-11- (CS-70-2019)

Ranjit Singh at the time of his cross-examination that there are other owners

also in this land, who are his relatives. He also admitted that the case of

partition is still going on. Furthermore, in their respective pleadings,

plaintiffs have admitted that they are in cultivating possession of the suit

property, whereas defendants have admitted that defendant no. 2 and his

family members have raised boundary wall, residential house and cattle-shed

etc., over the said land. This Court is of the considered opinion that merely

because the parties to the present suit are maintaining possession over the

suit property as per mutual understanding would not lead to the conclusion

that the suit property has been partitioned. Needless to say, there is no order

of partition from any competent authority. The revenue documents i.e

jamabandi Ex. P1 and relevant mutation Ex. P2 placed on record shows and

point out that the suit property is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the

defendants. The entries in revenue record are meant for fiscal purposes and

the same cannot be relied to clarify or prove the joint or separate status of

the property.

14. At the same time, it is necessary to state that even if it is

accepted that the parties to the present suit are co-sharers of the suit property

then also the plaintiffs would not be entitled to the relief of injunction, as the

plaintiffs have failed to put up and prove the case of ouster in the present

case.

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-12- (CS-70-2019)

15. It is a settled law that the relief of injunction cannot be granted

against a co-sharer of the property unless the act of one co-sharer amounts to

ouster of the other co-sharer. This law was laid down in Bhartu vs.

Ramsarup 1981 (PLR) 204 wherein it was held that if the possession of all

the co-sharer is joint the relief of injunction cannot be sought by either of

them and the only remedy is to seek partition by metes and bounds. This was

also further reiterated in Bachan Singh Vs. Sawarn Singh 2000 (PLJ)

143. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that "A co-owner cannot

seek injunction against another co-owner unless the act of the person in

possession amount to outster, prejudicial or adverse to the interest of another

co-owner". Further, I draw support from the judgment of Joginder Singh

and Others Vs. Ajit Singh LJR 2010 (3) 1 (P&H) upon which the

Learned defendant counsel has placed reliance wherein relying upon the

decision in Jai Karan Sharma Vs. Ram Kumar 2009 (2) CCC 83

(P&H), it was held that mere making of construction in common property

would not amount to outster of the other and that in such cases a co-owner

cannot seek injunction for restraining another co-owner from raising

construction. It was further held that the only remedy available to the

aggrieved co-owner is to file a suit for partition. The defendant counsel has

further placed reliance upon the case of Mange Ram & Others Vs. Baru

Ram & Others LJR 1998 (1) page 473 P&H wherein it was held that

"the sale of even specific portion out of joint land by a co-sharer is deemed

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-13- (CS-70-2019)

to be sale of a share out of joint land”. This being the position, no injunction

could be issued by the Court restraining the defendants from alienating the

property till the time the land is partitioned. This Court fully draw support

from the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and concludes that

no case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs in view of the above

discussion. The Court cannot restrain the defendants from raising

construction over the suit property or from alienating the suit property in any

manner. However, it is also a settled law that in case the defendants raise

construction over any part of the suit property they cannot claim that specific

portion over which they have raised construction belongs to them at the time

of partition of the property.

16. Thus, taking into account, the material available on the file and

the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that plaintiffs

have miserably failed to show and establish their case against the

defendants. Resultantly, issue no. 1 is hereby decided against the

plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUES NO. 2 TO 6:

17. In the present case, the onus to prove these issues was upon the

defendants. No evidence has been led by the defendants in support of the

said issues. Neither any arguments have been addressed in pursuance of the

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-14- (CS-70-2019)

said issues. Accordingly, these issues are decided against the defendants and

in favour of plaintiffs as unpressed.

ISSUE NO. 7 (RELIEF)

18. As a sequel of my findings, especially on issue no. 1, suit of the

plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs. Original unexhibited documents

be returned to the parties after retaining copy of the same for purpose of

record, if so desired. Any file/record summoned may be detached and sent

back to the quarter concerned. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be

consigned to record room after due completion and compliance.

(Madhur Bajaj)
Announced in open Court. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),
Dated: 07.08.2024. Indri (UID No.HR0373)

Note: - All (14) pages of this judgment have been checked and
signed by me.

(Madhur Bajaj)
Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)
Indri (Karnal). 07.08.2024.

Typed by: Dev Raj (Steno-II)

(“I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document”)

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....
 (CNR No.HRKRB0-000090-2019)
Ranjit Singh & Ors. versus Darbara Singh Anr.
-15- (CS-70-2019)

Present: Shri B.P. Gupta counsel for the plaintiffs.

Shri Samay Singh Jatain counsel for the defendants.

No rebuttal evidence is present and the same is closed by court

order. Arguments heard. Judgment pronounced. Vide my separate judgment

of even date, civil suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after

due completion and compliance.

Pronounced in Open Court (Madhur Bajaj)

Dated: 07.08.2024 Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn)
Indri (UID No.HR-0373).

Typed by: Dev Raj (Steno-II)

(“I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document”)

(Madhur Bajaj)
ACJ(SD), Indri (Karnal)
07.08.2024 (HR-0373) Contd.....