CR-2786-2021 (O& [205] [1] Devender a Madhoop K [2] Mandhoop Devender a Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] captioned t orders pass 1 & 2 CPC [2] decree of p portion of 12.12.1991 Along with (O&M) & CR-4241-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA CR-2786- Date of De nder and another versus hoop Kaushik CR-4241- dhoop Kaushik versus nder and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for in CR-2786-2021 and for the r in CR-4241-2022. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advoca in CR-4241-2022 and for the r in CR-2786-2021. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of the present order, oned two cross revision petitions file rs passed by the Courts below on appli 2 CPC and the consequential appeals. Devender and Amar Singh, th e of permanent injunction, asserting on of the suit property on the .1991/13.12.1991 executed in their g with the suit, the plaintiffs prefe T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH -2021(O&M) of Decision :19.05.2026 …Petitioners ….Respondent -2022 (O&M) …Petitioner ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN ate for the petitioners r the respondents dvocate for the petitioner r the respondent order, I intend to dispose off the afo s filed by rival parties, impugning application under Order XXXIX Rule eals. ngh, the plaintiffs, filed a suit seekin erting their possession over a specif the strength of sale deed date their favour against their co-sharer preferred an application under Ord 1 he afore ning the X Rules seeking specific dated sharers. Order RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.22 14:28 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-2786-2021 (O& XXXIX R possession [3] defendant injunction. under Orde [4] the rival pa possession [5] sale deed in claimants by way of person, can plaintiffs a 12.05.2021 [6] the sale dee He submits biswas out persons, wi in possessi 12.05.2021 by boundrie [7] (O&M) & CR-4241-2022 (O&M) IX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking int ession during the pendency of the suit. Defendant filed a counter dant also claimed the possession a ction. The counter-claim was also Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Both the Courts below have d ival parties, holding that none of them ession over the suit property. Mr. Hooda, has assailed the deed in favour of the plaintiffs is of th ants/respondents claimed to have pur ay of sale deed dated 12.05.2021. cannot be allowed to interfere in tiffs and to dispossess the plaintiffs u .2021. Per contra, Mr. Aggarwal, ha ale deed dated 12.12.1991 propounded ubmits that the sale deed pertains to out of joint land bearing 46 bigha without specifying the specific po ossession. He further relies upon .2021 to submit that a specific portio undries in the sale deed in favour of I have heard counsel for the ng interim injunction to protect the e suit. unter-claim. In the counter-claim sion and sought decree of permane s also accompanied by an applicatio ave dismissed the applications filed b them have been able to show exclusiv d the impugned order, stating that th s of the year 1991, whereas the counte ve purchased part of the joint proper 021. Defendant, being an influenti fere in the peaceful possession of th tiffs under the garb of sale deed date al, has drawn attention of this Court ounded by the plaintiffs in their favou ins to an area measuring 02 bighas ighas 06 biswas and is in favour of 1 ific portion in which they have been p upon sale deed in his favour date portion was sold which was describe ur of counter-claimants. or the parties and have carefully gon 2 ct their claim, rmanent lication filed by xclusive that the counter- property fluential of the d dated Court to favour. 10 ur of 10 een put r dated escribed ly gone RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.22 14:28 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-2786-2021 (O& through rec [8] by vendee o ‘Ramdas observing a (O&M) & CR-4241-2022 (O&M) gh records of the case. The issue with respect to gran ndee of co-sharer has been crystalized das versus Sitabai and others’, rving as under:- “15. Without there being an undivided landed property, a possession although such a transfer his undivided share. placed to a decision of this C Vs. M. Narasimhaswami & this Court stated as follows:- "Now, it is well settle parcener's undivided in is not entitled to posses His only right is to sue ask for allotment to him be found to fall to the s share he had purchased 16. It may be mentioned h and the conclusions were rec placing reliance upon an ea Sidheshwar Mukherjee Vs. Singh &Ors. [AIR 1953 SC 4 under:- "All that (vendee) purch the undivided interes property. He did not ac the property and was from the date of his p rights only by a suit possession would date o grant of injunction on the plea raise talized by Supreme Court in the case o ers’, reported as 2009 (7) SCC 44 g any physical formal partition of a y, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee h a co-sharer may have a right are. Reliance in this regard may b his Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Ra Ors. [AIR 1966 SC 470], where - ettled that the purchaser of a c d interest in the joint family proper ssession of what he had purchase sue for partition of the property an him of that which, on partition, mig the share of the co- parcener whos ased." d herein that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Supreme Court b n earlier judgment of this Court Vs. Bhubneshwar Prasad Nara C 487], wherein this Court held a urchased at the execution sale, wa erest of co-parcener in the joi t acquire title to any defined share as not entitled to joint possessio is purchase. He could work-out h suit for partition and his right ate from the period when a specif 3 a raised case of C 444, of an dee in ght to ay be a Rao herein a co- operty ased. y and might hose dings urt by urt in arain eld as , was joint are in ssion ut his ht to ecific RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.22 14:28 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-2786-2021 (O& [9] Mr. Hooda too during that either o land by the Court finds filed under as well as t [10] present cas [11] disposed o [12] off. [13] 19.05.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) & CR-4241-2022 (O&M) allotment was made in h 17. In view of the afores dispute with regard to the fac sharer may be a subject matt be handed over to the v partitioned by metes and boun settlement or by a decree of t On being specifically asked to Hooda has merely referred to an affid uring the pendency of the suit. In the ither of the parties were in possession by their respective vendees to the e t finds that the Courts below have r under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC ell as the counter-claimants. Keeping in view the peculiar nt case(s), the Trial Court is directed t With the aforesaid direction sed off. All pending miscellaneous app Photocopy of this order be plac .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable in his favour (Emphasis added) resaid position there could be n e fact that an undivided share of c matter of sale, but possession cann e vendee unless the property bounds amicably and through mutu of the Court.” sked to show possession of his vendo n affidavit executed by his vendor, th In the absence of any evidence to prov ession of the specific portion of the su the exclusion of other co-sharer, th have rightly dismissed the application 2 CPC by both the parties, i.e. plaintif eculiar facts and circumstances of th ected to decide the suit expeditiously. rections, the revision petitions stan us application(s), if any, stand dispose be placed on the file of connected case (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 4 e no of co- nnot rty is utual vendor, that to prove the suit , this lications laintiffs s of the usly. stand posed d case. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.22 14:28 I agree to specified portions of this document