Babu Ram and Others vs Joginder Singh and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge Kurukshetra dated 16.11.1996 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Senior Sub Judge kurukshetra dated 9.6.1994.

The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the Khal situated in his land. The suit property is claimed to be the joint property of the parties. According to the plaintiffs, the land has not been partitioned and that they have been enjoying the Khal in question for irrigating their land which has been in their exclusive possession. Both the Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record decreed the suit. The said finding has been arrived at on the basis of parties evidence on record. As the same is a pure finding of fact, this Court will not interfere with the same.

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the partition proceedings are pending and the judgments in the suit may not affect the rights of the parties in the partition proceedings and the equities of the parties have to be worked out while effecting the partition of the lands which are joint. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. This is only a suit for injunction. Whether the land on which the Khal is now in existence has to be allotted to the plaintiff or some other co-sharer is a matter to be decided only in partition proceedings. It is always open to the plaintiff to claim that the land which has been in his possession has to be allotted to him and it is equally so in the case of a purchaser of a co-owner to seek that the specific portion which he has purchased be allotted to him. It is matter to be decided in the partition proceedings while adjusting the equities between the parties. Therefore any observation made by the Courts below while decreeing the suit for injunction shall not come in the way in the partition proceedings while adjusting the equities between the parties.

Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.