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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more