Skip to main content

Joint owner normally cannot prevent by injunction the usage of a portion of the joint property by another co-owner

Cause Title : Tarsem Singh vs Major Singh, High Court Of Punjab And Haryana, RSA-5381-2019 (O&M)

Date of Judgment/Order : 25.07.2022

Corum : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin

Citied: Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup [1981 PLJ 204]

            Bachan Singh vs. Swaran Singh [2000(3) RCR (Civil) 70]

Background
   
The plaintiff-appellant contended that the plaintiff-appellant is in exclusive possession of the suit land and the defendant-respondents are trying to illegally and forcibly interfere in his possession and, as such the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the injunction as prayed for. Reliance was also placed on the entries of the khasra girdawri wherein, as per counsel, the plaintiff-appellant and his brothers are shown cultivating the suit land. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that the defendant-respondents were encroaching on their property and appealed for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents. 

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant as well as the counter-claim of the defendant-respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant. The defendant-respondents filed objections. The lower Appellate Court dismissed both the appeal as well as the objections. Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The High Court observed that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish his exclusive possession over the suit land and there being no finding that any act by the defendant-respondents was detrimental to the interests of the other co-owners in the joint land and both the Courts below have concurrently found that the suit land is joint. Once the suit land is not partitioned and the parties to the suit are co-sharers and co-owners, each and every co-sharer is in possession of every inch of land. A joint owner cannot prevent by injunction the usage of a portion of the joint property by another co-owner unless this amounts to wastage or destruction or injury to the other co- owners. Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more