IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 810 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 15, 2008 Kuldip Singh ..........Petitioner VERSUS Jai Singh and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms.Raheesh Pahwa, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** RANJIT SINGH J. Having remained unsuccessful in seeking order restraining the respondents from alienating specific Khasra numbers before the trial and the Appellate Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating specific Khasra numbers out of the joint khewat of the land till it is partitioned by metes and bounds. Along with the suit the petitioner Civil Revision No. 810 of 2008 { 2 } filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying for interim order in his favour. The trial Court declined the prayer of the petitioner against which he filed an appeal. The same has also been dismissed. The plaintiff and defendants are brothers and it is pleaded that they are joint owner in possession as co-sharers. It is claimed that the land has never been partitioned between the co-sharers and, thus, the petitioner being co-owner has a right in every inch of the undivided land. Respondent No.1, however, resisted this claim of the petitioner and stated that he had already sold a land measuring 10-B and 15-B out of the share in the suit land in favour of M/s Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. Submission is that the petitioner is a co- sharer of the disputed land which has not been partitioned and, as such, the respondents would have no right to sell any specific killa numbers. It is, thus, pleaded that respondents being co-sharers can be restrained from alienating the land in dispute. On the contrary the respondents have maintained that the land is partitioned and thereafter the co-sharers were in a separate possession. They, as such, had a right to alienate the land in their possession. The documents on record show that the petitioner and respondents are co-sharers and are not reflected to be in possession of any particular khasra number. As per jama bandi, Jai Civil Revision No. 810 of 2008 { 3 } Singh and Jasbir Singh are shown to be co-sharers in possession. It is noticed that the petitioner has even failed to plead specific killa numbers which are in his possession out of the total suit land. The family partition alleged by the respondents can also not advance the case as this partition is not reflected in the revenue record. In this view of the matter, all the co-sharers in the land are considered to be in possession and it can not be said that any co-sharer is in possession of any particular killa number. It is accordingly observed that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss being in his favour. It is also observed by the Courts that even if respondents are able to alienate any specific khasra numbers of the land, the sale would be of their share and not that of any specific khasra number. The subsequent vendee would have a right of possession which shall be subject to partition. He would hold the land as a co-sharer and would not be in exclusive possession of any portion out of the joint holding till partition is effected. One may also need to notice that temporary injunction can not be claimed by co-owner against other co-owner who has been in exclusive possession of entire or part of property unless the act of co-owner amounts to ouster which is prejudicial or adverse to the interest of co-owner out of possession. In this regard reliance can be placed on the case of Bachan Singh vs. Swaran Singh AIR 2001 (P&H) 112. It is on this premise that the prayer for interim Civil Revision No. 810 of 2008 { 4 } injunction sought by the petitioner is declined. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any material irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order which would call for any interference. The petitioner has also not been able to show if he is likely to suffer irreparable loss. His interest are well protected under the law and subsequent vendee is going to have only a share in the joint holding and can not claim exclusive possession of any particular killa number. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE February 15, 2008 anita