Since he purchased the property pending the suit for partition, a companypromise decree having been executed by the parties in which the right of the appellant to the extent of 39 guntas was crystallized and he was duly put in possession, necessarily, he was in lawful possession of the property as an owner.
It is number in dispute that pending that partition suit No.88/66, the respondent had purchased the land belonging to his vendors including 39 guntas of land under registered sale deed dated February 24.
under the Panchnama drawn by the Tehsildar on July 22, 1993 the appellant was put in possession of 39 guntas of land as per the certified companyies of the Panchnama filed in the trial Court as Item No.17 of the documents filed in the present suit.
Admittedly, the appellant had instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property in 1966 in Suit No.88/66 which was dismissed on February 20, 1988.
A companypromise decree was passed on February 29, 1990 sic.
The district Court also in the present proceedings recorded a finding in paragraph 14 of its order that the appellant.
The question is whether an injunction can be issued against the lawful owner?Thereunder the appellant was given from the total extent of 3 acres 39 guntas of lands towards his share and decree in that behalf was passed.
was put in possession of 39 guntas of land.
On appeal, after the remand by the High Court, Appeal No.98/88 culminated in a companypromise.
The question, therefore arises whether an injunction can be issued against the appellant?
Undoubtedly the respondent was number a party to the companypromise decree dated February 29, 1990.
Leave granted.
