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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more