Gurcharan Singh vs Gurbachan Kaur

Rakesh Garg, J.—Respondent No. 1 filed the instant suit against the defendants seeking declaration to the effect that she has become co-sharer/co-owner to the extent of 1/2 share in 3HP electric motor bearing account No. L3-732 installed over the land bearing Khasra No. 21//3 min(1-10) situated in village. Laadwala, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala on the basis of sale deeds dated 05.05.2003 and 04.05.2004 executed by defendant No. 1 (now respondent No. 2) in her favour. She further sought declaration to the effect that decree dated 02.09.2000 suffered by defendants No. 1 (now respondent No. 2) and 7 (now respondent No. 9) in favour of defendants No. 2 (now appellant) and 3 (now represented by respondents No. 3 to 5) and Karnail Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 4 to 6 (now respondents No. 6 to 8), and the compromise dated 02.09.2000 arrived in Suit No. 207 of 16.08.2000 titled as ''Gurcharan Singh etc. v. Joginder Kaur and others'', was ineffective and inoperative qua her Fights regarding 3HP electric motor bearing account No. L3-732. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 further sought injunction restraining the defendants from preventing her from the use and enjoyment of the aforesaid electric motor and also restraining the defendants from using any part of her land as a passage or making of any water channel for passing of water from the aforesaid electric motor to their land or otherwise interfering into her peaceful possession over the land purchased by her, as detailed in the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants.

The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 07.01.2008 partly decreed the suit to the effect that the defendants were restrained from making passage or water channel in the land, which the plaintiff had purchased from defendant No. 1. Rest of the relief claimed by the plaintiff was declined. While passing the aforesaid decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, the trial Court also found that the suit land was in her exclusive possession.

Defendant No. 2 as well as the plaintiff-respondent challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing separate appeals. The first appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 01.11.2010, dismissed both the appeals.

Still not satisfied, defendant No. 2 has filed the instant appeal against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below aggrieved from the relief granted to the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendants from making passage or water channel in the land which the plaintiff had purchased from defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2).

It has been submitted before this Court that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration:

Whether the pleading taken in the written statement is not sufficient to constitute the issue?

Whether the lower Courts have misread or misinterpreted the settled position of law?

Whether under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, it is mandatory to file counter-claim when specific plea has been taken in the written statement?

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent is a co-sharer in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. Her rights have been protected vide impugned judgments and decrees till actual partition takes place between the co-sharers. In view thereof, no fault can be found with the findings so recorded by the courts below.

Thus, the substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise at all in this appeal.

Dismissed.