Civil Revision No. 806 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 806 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.10.2009 Naresh and another ....Petitioners Versus Ram Niwas and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 3752-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioners are exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3. CR No. 806 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.9.2008 passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands allowed. The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners herein from interfering in the peaceful possession on the ground of ownership and possession. The case set up by the plaintiff/respondents was, that the petitioners, through their mother, with the permission of the Court, sold the land in dispute to the plaintiffs and put them in possession. The possession was duly entered in the revenue record. The suit was contested, wherein plea was taken, that the Civil Revision No. 806 of 2009 (O&M) -2- plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property and, therefore, were not entitled to injunction prayed for. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by holding, that the plaintiff/respondents have failed to prove their possession over the land to claim injunction. The learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court, by recording the following findings: - “From the perusal on record, it can be ascertained that mother of the defendants was granted permission to sell land vide order of Senior Sub Judge, Jind dated 14.06.1988 in a petition u/s 82 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Consequently, the land in dispute was sold by Smt. Chanderpati wife of Maha Singh son of Chandgi Ram residents of village Hathwala in favour of Ram Niwas, plaintiffs/appellants vide sale deed No.399 dated 27.11.1990 and possession over rect. No.44, killa No. 9 (8 kanals 0 marlas) was given to the buyers on the spot. Thereafter, mutation No.1087 was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants on 29.02.1990 and since then they are continuously being recorded as owner in possession over the land in dispute in revenue records. The khasra, girdawaries from the year 1994 onwards are also in the name of plaintiffs/appellants, which shows that they are in cultivating possession over the land in dispute. Therefore, the learned lower Court was not right to hold that plaintiffs/appellants are not in cultivating possession of any killa number. It is also admitted fact that defendants/respondents had sold killa No.50//5 vide sale deed No.1081 dated 18.05.2005, however, this killa number has not concerned with the land in dispute.” Mr. R.N. Lohan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the co-owner was not entitled to maintain the suit for Civil Revision No. 806 of 2009 (O&M) -3- injunction against other co-owner. Furthermore, the sale in favour of the plaintiff/respondents could be only qua the share, and the specific khasra number could not be sold nor plaintiffs could be given possession by sale of share. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This is a case where the petitioners themselves have sold the particular khasra numbers, and have put the plaintiff/respondents in possession of the suit property. The entry regarding their possession is duly depicted in the revenue record since 1994. The case would have been different, in case, the sale was by some other co-owner. Once the petitioners themselves have sold the property and put the plaintiff/respondents in possession, it was open to the plaintiff/respondents to protect their possession over the suit property against the petitioners, though not against the other co-owners, if any. Findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) October 08, 2009 Judge R.S.