Raj Mal vs Smt. Bhagti and Others

S.P. Goyal, J.—This revision has arisen out of a suit filed by Respondent No. 1 for a declaration that she is the joint owner of the land in dispute and that its sale by Defendants 2 to 6 in favour of the Petitioner in this revision, would not affect her rights in any manner as a co-sharer. As a consequential relief, she claimed permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from interfering in her joint possession and from raising any construction on the disputed property. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court held that as the vendors were not proved to be in exclusive possession of the suit land, the Petitioner was not entitled to raise any construction thereon. This approach was wholly unwarranted. The land in dispute together with some more land was the joint property of the parties, whereupon three houses had already been constructed by them. The remaining land, which is lying vacant is an urban area. It is not the Plaintiff�s case that any portion of the remaining land is meant for the common purposes of the co-sharers. When the co-shares have already raised their houses on some portion of the land in dispute, a similar use by one of the co-sharers cannot be denied to him by the other co-sharers. However, the rights of the Plaintiff would be further safeguarded by the undertaking given by the Petitioner who is present in the Court that if any portion of the site in dispute would fall to the share of the Plaintiff at the time of partition, he will not claim any compensation for the construction raised and would surrender the same to the Plaintiff. Consequently, this petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. No costs.