Heard Sri R.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Petitioners instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect to the land in dispute. Interim injunction application filed in the above suit was rejected by the trial court and the appeal preferred against the same has also been dismissed. Thus, the present writ petition has been preferred.
The parties admit the property to be under joint ownership therefore each and every co-owner would have equal right on every part of the same unless there is partition or division.
The property is said to have been partitioned but with regard to the same no evidence or even any material to prima facie establish that any partition had taken place has been brought on record. The Amin report establishes that the defendants-respondents have raised a wall shown by letters JK and that they are in possession of the disputed land.
In the absence of the possession of the petitioners and the admitted position that the petitioners have not made any amendment in the plaint so as to seek mandatory injunction for the demolition or the removal of the wall, I am of the opinion that the courts below have not erred in law in refusing interim injunction to the petitioners. Writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.10.2010 piyush