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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more