Surjit Kaur v. Sadhu Ram And ORS.

C.R. No.75 of 2016(O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.75 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision.08.01.2016 Surjit Kaur wife of Gurmail Singh .......Petitioner Vs.

Sadhu Ram and others .........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

There is no warrant of interference with an order of dismissing the application for injunction, after making an observation that the defendant has already put up some construction and permitted to continue with the same. While so doing, the Court was referring the judgments of this Court that a co-owner will not be prevented from putting up a construction in the property where already existed one and injunction ought not to be granted. The lower Court has, therefore, addressed the case from the precedents placed before it and has come to the correct conclusion.

2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that if the construction is completed and it turns out that the petitioner's own share in the property is affected by such construction, the apprehension can be allayed by an assurance that any construction that is made, already observed, would be subject to the ultimate result in the case. That PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.12 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.75 of 2016(O&M) -2ought to be understood as meaning that no special equities will be pleaded by the defendant who puts up construction and if a partition decree is passed in favour of the petitioner, the Court will suggest modes of partition assuming the property to be existing at the stage at which the property was when the suit was instituted. In such contingency, the defendant will not be permitted to plead that he has put up construction at heavy costs and he should be given right of retention of property over which the construction is made.

3.

With these observations, the civil revision is disposed of as requiring no modification in the order.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 08, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.12 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document