Sardari Lal and Others vs Nanak Chand

Viney Mittal, J.—Shri R.C. Dogra, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants has contended that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs was merely for permanent injunction for restraining defendant, Nanak Chand, from raising any construction on the suit property during the pendency of the partition proceedings. Shri Dogra has relied upon Judgment and Decree dated January 6, 1989, Ex. P-2 vide which the claim for joint possession had been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the property was held to be joint between the parties.

Shri Sarju Puri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the suit in question had been filed by the plaintiffs on December 12, 1997 and even at the time of filing of the suit, defendant, Nanak Chand had completed the construction on the site in question. Shri Sarju Puri, learned counsel very fairly states that the defendant does not wish to raise any further construction till the partition proceedings are finalised between the parties.

The statement of Shri Sarju Puri, learned counsel for the respondent fully satisfies the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

In view of the agreement between the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is disposed of and it is directed that the defendant/respondent shall not raise any further construction on the suit property till the partition proceedings are finalised between the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to take all such pleas before the partitioning authorities as are available to them in accordance with law.

The main appeal stands disposed of.