CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. --- C.M. NO. 1-C/2011: This is an application of placing on record legal representatives of deceased petitioners Nos. 2, 4 and respondent No. 2. C.M. Is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions.
MAIN CASE 2.. This single order shall 'dispose of Civil Revision No. 826/1998 and Criminal Original No. 52-C/99 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this civil revision are that the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners-defendants alleging therein that the suit property, fully described in the plaint, is a joint property but respondent No. 1 wishes to alienate a specific portion of the same in addition to raising construction thereon illegally. The suit was vehemently opposed by the petitioners on, the ground that the property in dispute has already been portioned through family settlement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. The learned Trial Court after recording evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.05.1996. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal which was accepted and the suit was decreed vide impugned judgment dated 15.10.1997. Hence this civil revision was filed. In C.M. Nos. 1-C/98 and 1-C/99, this Court restrained the petitioners to alienate a specific portion of the land and raise construction on the disputed land. The respondents filed the criminal original petition No. 52-C/99 asserting that the petitioners are violating the said orders.
4: Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The only contention of the petitioners is that the suit property was a joint property which has already been partitioned privately and if there is any grievance to the respondents in this regard, they should file a suit for partition as the suit for permanent injunction against a co-sharer is not maintainable.
6. Admittedly, the property in dispute is joint amongst the parties. The respondents deny that partition has taken place. It is settled law that each co-sharer is owner in each and every inch in the joint khata, therefore, one co-sharer cannot be allowed to usurp the rights, of others in any manner. A permanent injunction can be granted by the Court when there is an apprehension of change in nature of the property. The respondents allege that a certain portion of the property has already been alienated by the petitioners which is denied by the other side. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioners are in possession of the property who want to raise construction thereon illegally. In the circumstances, the learned lower Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction observing that petitioners cannot be allowed to raise construction or alienate a specific portion of joint khata until and unless it is partitioned in accordance with law. Furthermore, suit for partition has already been filed by the respondents wherein the actual shares of each co-sharer will be determined. The judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court is based on cogent reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality , irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence. No interference is called for.
7. As a result of above discussion, this civil revision lacks merit, hence dismissed. As a consequence, Crl. Org. No. 52-C/99 also stands dismissed.
Civil revision .