C.R. No. 4698 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4698 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.08.2009 Harnek Singh son of Jagat Singh r/o village Shekhupura, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Dalbara Singh; 2. Pal Singh; both sons of Sarwan Singh r/o village Shekhupura, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 03.10.08, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide which, it directed the parties, to maintain status quo, with regard to the possession of the property, and the judgement dated 05.06.09, rendered by the Additional C.R. No. 4698 of 2009 2 District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Patiala, vide which, the appeal, was dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs claimed that, they alongwith others, were in possession of the property, in dispute, as owners. The defendant had no concern with the land, in dispute, and he tried to dispossess them therefrom. The defendant, was many a time, asked not to do so, but to no avail. On his final refusal, to desist from his nefarious designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed. 3. Alongwith the plaint, an application, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of ad-interim injunction, was filed. 4. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, as also the reply, wherein, it was stated that, he purchased the land, from Beer Kaur, one of the co-sharers, who had died, and Bant Kaur, and others, are legal heirs of the said deceased. It was further stated that the defendant, was put in possession of the property, in dispute, by his vendor. It was further stated that the plaintiffs, had concealed this factum. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the record, the trial Court, directed the parties, to maintain status quo. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was also dismissed, by the Additional C.R. No. 4698 of 2009 3 District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Patiala, vide judgement, dated 05.06.09. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that since the revision-petitioner, was put in possession of specific khasra number, which was in possession of Beer Kaur, the Courts below, were wrong, in granting status quo. He further submitted that, being a vendee, in possession of the property, in dispute, after having purchased a specific khasra number, from his vendor, who was a co- sharer, in the said property, the revision-petitioner, could not be dispossessed therefrom, except in accordance with the provisions of law. He further submitted that the orders of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, the property, in dispute, is joint. If the defendant/revision-petitioner, purchased a portion of the property, on 03.09.08, during the pendency of the suit, but he did not set up the same, in the written statement at the most, after purchasing a portion of the property, in dispute, from one of the C.R. No. 4698 of 2009 4 co-sharers, he could only be said to have purchased a share. He, thus, became a co-sharer, in the property, after the purchase of such land. Every co-sharer is joint owner, in joint possession of each and every inch of the joint property, until the same is partitioned. In my opinion, with a view to keep the nature and possession of the property, in dispute, intact, the Courts below, were right, in directing the parties, to maintain status quo, with regard to possession. No prejudice, was caused to the interests of the defendant/revision-petitioner, on account of the order of status quo, having been passed by the Courts below. The orders of the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. 21.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE