***

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. –

1. The instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal and order dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present revision petition are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants/petitioners from dispossessing or interfering into the peaceful possession of the land detailed in the head note of the plaint. It has been alleged by the plaintiffs that the respondents are legal heirs of deceased Rati Ram, who had died 10 years ago and in the column of cultivation, name of deceased Rati Ram father of the plaintiffs/respondents is mentioned and in the column of ownership name of Jiwan Ram, Rati Ram and Kalu Ram are mentioned. The plaintiffs along with other legal heirs of Rati Ram are in possession of land measuring 23 kanal 0 marla comprised in khewat No.578, khatoni No.1127, rectangle No.87, killa No.18/2 (7-18), 22 (8-0), 23 (7-2). Besides this, plaintiffs along with other legal heirs of Rati Ram are in possession of land measuring 1 kanal 11 marlas comprised in khewat No.195, khatoni No.224, rectangle No.138, killa No.11/1 (1-11) situated at village Garhi Bharal, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal as per jamabandi for the year 2016-17. L.Rs. of Jeewan are also in possession of land measuring 24 kanal 5 marlas comprised in khewat No.195, khatoni No.222 and L.Rs. of Kalu Ram are also in possession of land measuring 24 kanal 5 marlas comprised in khewat No.195, khatoni No.223, situated in village Garhi Bharal, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Previously, the aforesaid land was owned by Jeewan, Kalu Ram and Rati Ram and they have partitioned their land about 40 years back and the land came into the respective share of Jeewan, Kalu Ram and Rati Ram. The tubewell connection was also obtained by father of the plaintiff in the land in possession of the plaintiffs. It has also been alleged that defendants are legal heirs of Jeewan and Kalu Ram and they are in possession of land in khewat No.195, Khatoni No.222 and 223. As the defendants conspired together with a view to dispossess the plaintiffs and legal heirs of Rati Ram from the suit property, hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents.

3. On notice of the suit, defendants appeared and filed written statement by claiming themselves to be the owner in possession of the suit land according to their share. It was alleged that a petition for partition of the suit land was also pending in the Court of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Karnal. It was denied that the plaintiffs along with other legal heirs of Rati Ram are in possession of the entire land as claimed in the plaint. All legal heirs of Jeewan and Kalu Ram are in possession of the land according to their share. Defendants are also in possession of the land as per share and ownership.

4. Along with the suit, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2023 and the defendants were restrained from interfering into the possession and from dispossessing the plaintiffs and other legal heirs of deceased Rati Ram from the land detailed in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, till the final disposal of the case. Aggrieved against the said order, defendants filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2023. Hence, the petitioners/defendants have knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing of the present revision petition.

5. While relying upon the decision of this Court in Bachan Singh Vs. Swaran Singh, 2000 (3) RCR (Civil) 70, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the provisions of law that until and unless the land is partitioned, each co-sharer is having equal right on each part of the land. He has argued that in the present case also, when it is the admitted fact that land is joint and is yet to be partitioned, but even then separate possession of the respondents/plaintiffs on one share of the land has been considered which is not permissible under law. It has also not been appreciated that the respondents/plaintiffs want to grab the valuable piece of the joint land which is yet to be partitioned under the garb of the present suit. Instead of going for partition, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to deprive the petitioners of their share in the disputed land and the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have perused the record.

7. Perusal of jamabandi for the year 2016-17 reveals that names of Jeewan, Kalu Ram and Rati Ram have been reflected in column No.4 of ownership pertaining to land comprised in khewat No.195, khatoni No.222, name of Jeewan has been mentioned in column No.5 regarding possession against khatoni No.224, rectangle No.138, killa No.11/1 (1-11), name of Rati Ram has been mentioned in column No.5 regarding possession against khewat No.578, khatoni No.1127, rectangle No.87, killa No.18/2 (7-18), 22 (88-0), 23 (7-2). Name of Rati Ram has been mentioned in column No.5 (regarding possession) Mutation No.3500 pertaining to khewat No.195 and 578 also reflects name of Rati Ram in column No.4 and names of Manga, Sumer Singh (plaintiff No.2), Shishpal, Jain Singh (plaintiff No.1), Bala, Santosh under column No.9, the aspect of inheritance under column No.13. The khasra girdawaris placed on record also reflect name of Rati Ram in column No.3 regarding suit property as detailed in para No.2 of the plaint. Jamabandi for the year 2020-21 reflects the name of Manga, Sumer, Shishpal, Jain Singh in Column No.4 and name of Jeewan in column No.5 pertaining to khewat No.195, khatoni No.222 and 223. So from the above said revenue record, it transpires that parties are in separate possession of the suit land as detailed in para No.2 of the plaint. So, when exclusive possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is evident from the revenue records, then the defendants have been rightly restrained from interfering into their exclusive possession over the suit land. So far as the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand as in the said case, it has been held that a co-owner, who is not in possession of the any part of the property, is not entitled to seek any injunction against another co-owner, who has been in conclusive possession of common property unless any act of person in possession of property amounts to ouster, prejudicial or adverse to interest of co-owner out of possession.

8. In the light of the above, the impugned orders are well reasoned orders and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and do not call for any interference.

9. The present revision petition sans any merits, stands dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********