431 1 4 CR Noe3838 of2009 1 Ill 1 1 4p IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C No 3838of2009 Date ofDecisionl July21 2009 Singhand another 1 r Petitioners 0 Vs 9 0 I Tara Chand and others C3 1 espondents I Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE MMS BEDI 0 I Presentl Mr BinderjitSinghAdvocate c6 for thepetitioners m 7 Zo 0 MMS BEDI J ll d r Plaintiffsclaiming over two plotsmeasurlng260 sq yardsand another 56 sq yardssituated in Patti Mehna Ganesha Basti 13athinda on the basis of two sale deeds dated March 29 2005 and mutations sanctionedon the basis of the sale deeds had soughtan interim injunctionunder Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in their suit for permanent injunctionto restrain the defendantmrespondents Tara Chand and others were awarded the order of status quo regarding possessionby Civil Judge Uma 2012.12.19 15: 52 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 432 CeReNo 3838 of2009 rJ 121 e Senior DivisionlFaridkot vide order dated 10 2006 but the interim relief granted to the plaintiffpetitioners has been set asideby the AdditionalDistrict JudgeFaridkot vide order datedAugust12 2008 inter alia on theground thatJoginder Kumar Joginder Singh son ofTara Chand and Krishna Devi was not in exclusive of the disputedplotas such deliveryof the same to the was notprimafacie established e The application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed bythe 0 0 has been dismissed Thetrial Court had taken into considerationthat the I defendantKrishna Devi had the land in disputevide sale deed I datedJanuary28 1971 and that she had submitteda site planway back Itl Z the year 1977 The trial Courtheld that it was difficult to relatethe plot111 questionwith the map therefore exclusive over the plot ln I disputeby partiescannot be determinedas such status quo was c6 awarded The Appellate Court hadmade a referenceto the Civil Suit No CD 350 of 16A2005 titled Joginder Kumar JoginderSinghVs 7 Z Singhand another wherein Tara Chand and Satish Kumar son of Tara 1 Chand had soughtdeclaration that JoginderKumar is the owner ltl ofthe houseandtheyhad soughtseparate bypanition of the land ltl Khasra NoA338120142 min and permanent injunctionrestraining the defendantsto interferein the peaceful over the house 325 sq yards In the said case JoginderKumar venderof plaintiffvpetitioners hasnowherepleaded that he was in exclusive Uma 2012.12.19 15: 52 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 433 CeR Noe3838 of2009 131 1 t lp 1 possession of any partof land in Khasra N033381201412Illlrl ratherhe hadclaimed separate ofhis house r Leamed counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the recitals in the sale deedsand the entriesfor the year2002e2003 the plaintiffalongwith others is shown to be in 1 ofthe specific khasranumbersin dispute L I haveheard counsel for the petitioner and gonc throughthe 0 0 contcntsof the sale deeds annexure Pe2 and P3 executed by Joginder m Kumarin favourof plaintiff where the factum of deliveryof has been mentionedby the vendor but at the same time an Z fact cannot be ignored that exclusive of Joginder C4 Kulnaron the khasra numbersin dispute lS not There does not to be any rapatroznamchashowingdeliveryof either to c6 JoginderKumar or from Joginder Kumar to the plaintiffsThe Lower m 7 Court does not seem to have committedany illegality ln arrlvlng Z r 014 at a primafacie conclusionthat the vendor of the plaintiffs in his suit for Om J partition has not even claimed Havingstepped intothe shoesof Joginder Kumar a coasharerin the propertyand plaintiffhavingnot been able to show the exclusive of vendor cannot primafacie be in The balanceofconvenience is also does not lie in favour ofthe plaintiffs The counterclaim of defendant Krishna Devi and various documentsreflecting her over the propertywhich she claims to be the saine as thepropertyclaimed bythe plaintiffthe order of statusquo Uma 2012.12.19 15: 52 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 434 CeR Noe3838 of2009 1 141 1 1 61 1 hasrightlybeenset asideas the saidorder had beenpassedbythe trial Coun havingnot been able to prlmafacie arrive at a conclusion regarding possessiOlle In view of above circumstancesno groundis made out for interferencein theimpugned order DismissedIA unJ C 3 0 July21 2009 0 sanJay JUDGE I IJ t a I Z I 08 00 7 Z 1 l 4 Ve 8 10 PV V Uma 2012.12.19 15: 52 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document