Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 481 (RAJ)

Janki Lal v. Pravin Kumar

2003-04-01

S.C.SINGHAL

body2003
SINGHAL, Member – The applicant-defendants have filed this revision under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (in short ``the Act), against the judgment dated 9.4.97 passed by Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, by which the appeal filed by the non-applicant-plaintiff, Pravin Kumar, has been accepted. (2). In short, the facts of the case are that the non- applicant-plaintiff, Pravin Kumar, filed a suit under Sec. 188 of the Act in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Eklera and an application under Section 212 of the Act has also been filed stating that he and applicant No.2 Mahavir Prasad are equal co- sharers and the disputed land is held by them jointly. The applicant No.2 Mahavir Prasad had sold his half share in the dispute property to applicant No.1 Janaki Lal without being partition it and applicant No.1 Janaki Lal intends to forcibly occupy the half share on the basis of the sale deed hence he may be restrained by temporary injunction not to forcibly occupy the disputed land. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 2.9.96 partly accepted the application. Against which, the non-applicant-plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned lower court which accepted the appeal and the non- applicant-plaintiff has been asked to deposit cash security of Rs. 250/- per bigha with the Tehsildar, Khanpur. Now this revision has been filed. (3). I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the record and also perused the impugned judgment. (4). It is not disputed that the disputed land belonged to one Kalyan who had sold half share to the applicant No.2 Mahavir Prasad and remaining half share to non-applicant Pravin Kumar on 19.6.84 by dint of registered sale deed. Thereafter applicant No.2 Mahavir Prasad sold his half share to applicant No.1 Janaki Lal on 28.6.96 by dint of registered sale deed. The learned counsel of the applicants has contended that the learned lower court has erred in asking cash security of Rs. 250/- per bigha from the non-applicant-plaintiff whereas half share has been purchased by the applicant No.1, therefore, he is co-sharer with the non-applicant. He has contended that he is holding the disputed land in the joint ownership with the non-applicant; therefore, he cannot be restrained from enjoying share of the property purchased by him. 250/- per bigha from the non-applicant-plaintiff whereas half share has been purchased by the applicant No.1, therefore, he is co-sharer with the non-applicant. He has contended that he is holding the disputed land in the joint ownership with the non-applicant; therefore, he cannot be restrained from enjoying share of the property purchased by him. On the other side, the learned counsel of the non-applicant has contended that the applicant No.1 Janaki Lal who is a stranger purchaser cannot cultivate the land without being partitioned and in the sale deed executed by the applicant No.2 Mahavir Prasad in his favour is not in accordance with law as in that sale deed southern portion of the disputed land had been said to be sold to him. He has contended that without division of disputed property, no specific share in the joint property could be sold. (5). I have given my thoughtful consideration on the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels. (6). So far as half share of Mahavir Prasad, i.e., the applicant No.2 and half share of non-applicant Pravin Kumar is concerned, there is no dispute about it. It is also admitted that the applicant No.2 Mahavir Prasad has sold his half share to the applicant No.1 Janaki Lal by dint of registered sale deed on 28.6.96. Now the question arises as to whether temporary injunction can be granted against Janaki Lal who is said to be a stranger purchaser. The Honble High Court has held in 2000 Western Law Cases (Raj) UC 47 that no injunction can be granted his coming on the property or enjoying the undivided share alleged to have been sold to him. In the present case, the applicant No.1 Janaki Lal is a co-tenant with non-applicant Pravin Kumar. He has purchased the half share belonging to Mahavir Prasad by dint of registered sale deed. In the Act undivided interest of a Khatedar tenant is transferable other than by way of sub-let subject to the condition as prescribed under Section 42 and 43 of the Act. The share owned by a person who is a co-sharer or co-tenant belongs to him alone. If a share in agricultural land is transferred by a co-sharer, the buyer of such co-tenant or co-sharer steps into the shoes of the sellers and become a co-tenant. (7). The share owned by a person who is a co-sharer or co-tenant belongs to him alone. If a share in agricultural land is transferred by a co-sharer, the buyer of such co-tenant or co-sharer steps into the shoes of the sellers and become a co-tenant. (7). As stated above, that no injunction can be granted against the purchaser on his coming on the property or enjoying the undivided share alleged to have been sold to him. Therefore, the learned lower Court has erred in handing over the disputed land to the non-applicant-plaintiff on furnishing Rs. 250/- per bigha as cash security by him. (8). In the result, this revision is disposed of by clarifying that the non-applicant plaintiff shall not be evicted from the possession of the suit lands as a co-owner and his right of enjoying land as co-owner would not be hampered in any manner by applicant No.1 and applicant No.1 shall be allowed to come on the property or enjoying the undivided share alleged to have been sold to him. With these clarifications the revision is disposed of. (9). Pronounced in the open court.