RSA No. 1104 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1104 of 2005 Date of decision : March 19, 2008 Didar Singh ..... Appellant versus Gram Panchayat and others ..... Respondents Present : Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for respondents No.3, 5, 7 and 8. *** S.S. SARON, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhari has been dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the land measuring RSA No. 1104 of 2005 -2- 11 kanals 16 marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint by efflux of time. Besides, a prayer was made for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the actual physical and cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is admitted case between the parties that the suit land is recorded as the ownership of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. The land was mortgaged by the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan with the Central Government for a sum of Rs.295.83P. In this regard, mutation No.398/2 dated 28.08.1963 was sanctioned in favour of the Central Government. The plaintiff-appellant being co-owner got the land redeemed from the Central Government. In this regard, order dated 12.05.1975 (Ex.D5) was passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jagadhri. During the course of hearing, Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision in Ram Kishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 334, he does not press the relief of declaration of ownership. He, however, states that being co- owner in possession of the suit land, he is entitled to the relief of injunction as a co-owner in settled posession cannot be evicted except in accordance with law i.e. by way of seeking partition. In response, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents has submitted that the plaintiff has claimed in Para 3 of his plaint that he is a mortgagee of the suit land. RSA No. 1104 of 2005 -3- Therefore, the defendants being members of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan are also co-owners of the land and can get it redeemed from the plaintiff. In this regard, reliance is placed on Raghavendracharya Appacharya Katti v. Vaman Shriniwas Deshpande and others, AIR (30) 1943 Bomaby 191 wherein, it has been held that redemption by other co-mortgagors must sue for redemption and not merely for possession. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It may be noticed that the land is admittedly owned by the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. Both the parties are members of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and co-owners of the suit land. The land was mortgaged with the Central Government on 28.08.1963. In this regard, mutation No.398/2 were sanctioned. The plaintiff redeemed the mortgaged land and in this regard, order dated 12.05.1975 (Ex. D-5) was passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jagadhari. However, in the plaint, the plaintiff has taken the stand that he has stepped into the shoes of the mortgagee. In any case, these aspects are not liable to the gone into because learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he does not press the relief for declaration to the effect that he is the absolute owner of the property and has become owner by efflux of time. The counsel for the appellant has confined his case to claim injunction. The learned trial Court considered the case and it was observed that the defendants stated that they were not interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and RSA No. 1104 of 2005 -4- they would proceed as per law and therefore it is settled law that when the defendants are owners of the suit property and they are not interfering in possession then there is no need to issue an injunction order. The defendants have filed an application (Ex. D3) seeking redemption of the land. The said application is pending and therefore the same is to be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority i.e. Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jagadhari. Since the controversy is narrow i.e. regarding injunction, it may be noticed that the defendants have themselves stated that they are not interfering in possession of the suit property and that they would proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no need for issuance of an order of injunction. Besides, no questions of law arise for consideration by this Court. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case with regard to the application (Ex. D3) filed by the defendants seeking redemption of the property. (S.S. SARON) March 19, 2008 JUDGE amit