RSA-6515- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 Krishan Kartar Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-18315 Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. by an affidavit, the same is accompanying appeal is condoned. RSA-6515- 1. against the the suit for permanent -2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Kartar Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Chirag Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. KetanAntil, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 18315-C-2018 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed; and delay of accompanying appeal is condoned. -2018 (O&M) The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgment and decrees the suit for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-6515-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 .…Appellant ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Chirag Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. KetanAntil, Advocate for the respondent. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported and delay of 117 days in filing the has been filed by the plaintiff judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby injunction with consequential relief of mandatory Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported days in filing the has been filed by the plaintiff the Courts below whereby injunction with consequential relief of mandatory RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-6515- injunction below. 2. appellant that the fact that there is no relationship of co litigation as the respondent/defendant had purchased the portion of plot from the brother of plaintiff and much before purchase the plaintiff got his exclusive share in the constructed boundary wall around his exclusive portion which had come in his share in the family settlement between the family members and in this way much before purchase of property by defendant the share brothers had been separated alongwith judgments and decrees have been based by both the learned courts below assuming the plaintiff perversity has cropped up in the impugned judgments and decrees which are liable to be set aside on this sole ground. 3. have been oblivious in ignoring the s Exhibited in the case which proves that the defendant purchased 300 sq.yard land of the shares of Rajinder, Jagdish, Varinder and Krishan and he claims that he purchased the aforesaid land not by registered sale deed but orally and in this view of the matter relying upon this fact by both the Courts below is unsustainable in eyes of law and raises a question that -2018 (O&M) -2- filed by the appellant has been It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the learned courts below have wrongly glossed the fact that there is no relationship of co-sharer between the parties to the litigation as the respondent/defendant had purchased the portion of plot from the brother of plaintiff and much before purchase the plaintiff got his exclusive share in the family settlement and immediately thereafter he constructed boundary wall around his exclusive portion which had come in his share in the family settlement between the family members and in this way much before purchase of property by defendant the share brothers had been separated. Hence holding the defendant as co plaintiff is absolutely wrong and illegal and the impugned judgments and decrees have been based by both the learned courts below the plaintiff and respondent co-sharers perversity has cropped up in the impugned judgments and decrees which are liable to be set aside on this sole ground. Further, it is submitted that have been oblivious in ignoring the stringent documentary evidence Exhibited in the case which proves that the defendant purchased 300 sq.yard land of the shares of Rajinder, Jagdish, Varinder and Krishan and he claims that he purchased the aforesaid land not by registered sale deed y and in this view of the matter relying upon this fact by both the ourts below is unsustainable in eyes of law and raises a question that filed by the appellant has been dismissed by both the Courts submitted by learned counsel for the both the learned courts below have wrongly glossed over sharer between the parties to the litigation as the respondent/defendant had purchased the portion of plot from the brother of plaintiff and much before purchase the plaintiff got his family settlement and immediately thereafter he constructed boundary wall around his exclusive portion which had come in his share in the family settlement between the family members and in this way much before purchase of property by defendant the share of the holding the defendant as co-sharer plaintiff is absolutely wrong and illegal and the impugned judgments and decrees have been based by both the learned courts below sharers. Hence the illegality and perversity has cropped up in the impugned judgments and decrees which are liable to be set aside on this sole ground. Further, it is submitted that both the learned courts below tringent documentary evidence Exhibited in the case which proves that the defendant purchased 300 sq.yard land of the shares of Rajinder, Jagdish, Varinder and Krishan and he claims that he purchased the aforesaid land not by registered sale deed y and in this view of the matter relying upon this fact by both the ourts below is unsustainable in eyes of law and raises a question that dismissed by both the Courts submitted by learned counsel for the over sharer between the parties to the litigation as the respondent/defendant had purchased the portion of plot from the brother of plaintiff and much before purchase the plaintiff got his family settlement and immediately thereafter he constructed boundary wall around his exclusive portion which had come in his share in the family settlement between the family members and in of the sharer plaintiff is absolutely wrong and illegal and the impugned the illegality and perversity has cropped up in the impugned judgments and decrees which both the learned courts below tringent documentary evidence Exhibited in the case which proves that the defendant purchased 300 sq.yard land of the shares of Rajinder, Jagdish, Varinder and Krishan and he claims that he purchased the aforesaid land not by registered sale deed ourts below is unsustainable in eyes of law and raises a question that RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-6515- how a oral purchaser can become the co of the property quite separate from the pers has purchased courts below. 4. well proved by deposition of PWs and documentary evidence which have remained unshaken by the defendant and the findings of both the learned courts below have been perverse, based upon no evidence and erroneous which cannot be sustained in eyes of law decrees of both the learned courts below are liable to interest of justice. exorbitant error in holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the family settlement by producing his mother and other brothers in the witness box 5. exclusive owner of his share in the plot by way of family settlement hence the necessity of proving the family settlement on the basis evidence is not there because there is no dispute regarding the family settlement and on the other hand when family settlement had come in operation between the co sharers by defendant then the quest of essence and the rightful claim of the plaintiff ground that he failed to prove family settlement on cogent Hence the impugned judgmen -2018 (O&M) -3- how a oral purchaser can become the co-sharer with the exclusive holder of the property quite separate from the pers has purchased. This aspect of the case has been wrongly courts below. Learned counsel also submits that well proved by deposition of PWs and documentary evidence which have ed unshaken by the defendant and the findings of both the learned courts below have been perverse, based upon no evidence and erroneous which cannot be sustained in eyes of law decrees of both the learned courts below are liable to interest of justice. Further, both the learned courts below have committed exorbitant error in holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the family settlement by producing his mother and other brothers in the witness box and in this way he has withheld the material evidence. It is submitted that since the exclusive owner of his share in the plot by way of family settlement hence the necessity of proving the family settlement on the basis evidence is not there because there is no dispute regarding the family settlement and on the other hand when family settlement had come in operation between the co-sharers before purchasing the land of other co sharers by defendant then the question of proving family settlement is not of essence and the rightful claim of the plaintiff ground that he failed to prove family settlement on cogent the impugned judgment and decrees of both the sharer with the exclusive holder of the property quite separate from the persons from whom the defendant aspect of the case has been wrongly ignored by both Learned counsel also submits that the case of the plaintiff is well proved by deposition of PWs and documentary evidence which have ed unshaken by the defendant and the findings of both the learned courts below have been perverse, based upon no evidence and erroneous which cannot be sustained in eyes of law. Hence the judgments and decrees of both the learned courts below are liable to be set aside in the both the learned courts below have committed exorbitant error in holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the family settlement by producing his mother and other brothers in the and in this way he has withheld the material evidence. since the plaintiff had earlier become exclusive owner of his share in the plot by way of family settlement hence the necessity of proving the family settlement on the basis of cogent evidence is not there because there is no dispute regarding the family settlement and on the other hand when family settlement had come in sharers before purchasing the land of other co- ion of proving family settlement is not of essence and the rightful claim of the plaintiff cannot be refuted on the ground that he failed to prove family settlement on cogent evidence. and decrees of both the Courts below sharer with the exclusive holder ons from whom the defendant by both the case of the plaintiff is well proved by deposition of PWs and documentary evidence which have ed unshaken by the defendant and the findings of both the learned courts below have been perverse, based upon no evidence and erroneous ence the judgments and be set aside in the both the learned courts below have committed exorbitant error in holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the family settlement by producing his mother and other brothers in the plaintiff had earlier become exclusive owner of his share in the plot by way of family settlement hence of cogent evidence is not there because there is no dispute regarding the family settlement and on the other hand when family settlement had come in ion of proving family settlement is not uted on the evidence. Courts below RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-6515- being based on wrong presumption are liable to be set aside on this sole ground. 6. vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff and submits that it is the own case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint that the defendant is a co evidence produced by the plaintiff property was joint in nature. It is submitted that as per established percepts of law Accordingly, learned counsel prays fo appeal. 7. parties. I have heard learned counsel 8. behalf of the plaintiff in the plaint that: possession holder in the plot/land averment made by the plaintiff in the plaint himself admitted that he is co defendant. evidence. As such, in the view of are co-shares plaintiff. The ground itself. -2018 (O&M) -4- based on wrong presumption are liable to be set aside on this sole Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff and submits that it is the own case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint that the defendant is a co-sharer in the suit land. evidence produced by the plaintiff himself property was joint in nature. It is submitted that as per established percepts of law ‘injunction cannot be sought against a co Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present second No other argument has been I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. It is the own in the plaint that: “The plaintiff is co possession holder in the plot/land ………” made by the plaintiff in the plaint himself admitted that he is co-sharer of the suit property with the It is established precept of law that admission is the best As such, in the view of the admitted shares, injunction could not have been granted in favour of the plaintiff. The present appeal deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself. based on wrong presumption are liable to be set aside on this sole learned counsel for the respondent-defendant vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff and submits that it is the own case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint that sharer in the suit land. Even as per the documentary himself, it was proven that the suit property was joint in nature. It is submitted that as per established ‘injunction cannot be sought against a co-sharer’. r dismissal of the present second has been raised by learned counsel for and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions advanced on is the own pleaded case of the plaintiff is co-sharer and joint ” A bare reading of the above made by the plaintiff in the plaint shows that the plaintiff has sharer of the suit property with the It is established precept of law that admission is the best the admitted position that both parties , injunction could not have been granted in favour of the present appeal deserves to be dismissed on this short based on wrong presumption are liable to be set aside on this sole defendant vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff and submits that it is the own case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint that cumentary , it was proven that the suit property was joint in nature. It is submitted that as per established . r dismissal of the present second RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-6515- 9. Subhash Chander and others vs. Amarjit and others Id #2091875 injunction restraining another co portion of the joint property, raising construction, or demolition without demonstrating that such acts ar without seeking partition. as follows: 10. the name of Jagdish (since deceased). defendant and after purchasing the same, the defendant had constructed a wall on th constructed by the defendant was illegal. plaintiff has now sought to state that a mutual Family Settlement had been en plaintiff and his other family members property stood partitioned prove any such Family Settlement -2018 (O&M) -5- Reliance may be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander and others vs. Amarjit and others Id #2091875, wherein it has been held that a co injunction restraining another co-sharer from alienating a specific portion of the joint property, raising construction, or demolition without demonstrating that such acts are detrimental to their interests, and without seeking partition. Head note B of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: “B. Co-sharers-Injunction against another co principles reiterated-Mere ex construction by one co-sharer in the common property does not entitle another co-sharer to seek an injunction unless it diminishes the value or utility of the property or is detrimental to the interests of the other co The plaintiff had further pleaded that suit property falls in the name of his mother namely, Smt. Risalo Devi Jagdish (since deceased). Said Jagdish had sold his share of land to the defendant and after purchasing the same, the defendant had constructed a wall on the suit property. It was contended by the plaintiff that the wall constructed by the defendant was illegal. Contrary to his has now sought to state that the suit property was not joint and that a mutual Family Settlement had been en plaintiff and his other family members stood partitioned. However, the plaintiff has miserabl prove any such Family Settlement. Plaintiff has not led Reliance may be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander and others vs. Amarjit and others, Law Finder Doc , wherein it has been held that a co-sharer cannot seek an sharer from alienating a specific portion of the joint property, raising construction, or demolition without e detrimental to their interests, and Head note B of the aforesaid judgment reads Injunction against another co-sharer-Legal Mere exclusive possession or arer in the common property does sharer to seek an injunction unless it diminishes the value or utility of the property or is detrimental to the interests of the other co-sharers.” pleaded that suit property falls in mother namely, Smt. Risalo Devi and his brother had sold his share of land to the defendant and after purchasing the same, the defendant had constructed e suit property. It was contended by the plaintiff that the wall Contrary to his own assertion, that the suit property was not joint and that a mutual Family Settlement had been entered into between the pursuant to which the suit . However, the plaintiff has miserably failed to . Plaintiff has not led any evidence in RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-6515- this regard. mother who had ostensibly given the suit property to him and his brother-Jagdish in the purported Family Settlement. The plaintiff has even failed to examine his allegedly ignored by his mother by giving the suit property only to the plaintiff and his deceased brother Therefore, neither any oral nor the documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff to prove that any family settlement h 11. year 2005- Perusal of possession the plaintiff. As such, possession over the suit property. plaintiff that the suit property has been partitioned between his brother and himself is negated from the documentary evidence on record. been admitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that partition has not yet taken pl 12. recorded as sharer along with Smt. Risalo Devi and others. The plaintiff is not even recorded as owner or as possessor of the claim of the plaintiff against co maintainable. -2018 (O&M) -6- this regard. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff to examine his mother who had ostensibly given the suit property to him and his Jagdish in the purported Family Settlement. The plaintiff has even failed to examine his other brothers whose rights had been ly ignored by his mother by giving the suit property only to the plaintiff and his deceased brother-Jagdish in a Family Settlement. Therefore, neither any oral nor the documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff to prove that any family settlement h Further, even as per the revenue Record/Jamabandi for the -06 (Ex. P-1) the suit property is Perusal of Jamabandi (Ex. P-1) reveals the suit property to be in joint possession of defendant-Kartar Singh and Smt. Risalo Devi/mother of the plaintiff. As such, in fact, the plaintiff has possession over the suit property. Thus, plaintiff that the suit property has been partitioned between his brother and himself is negated from the documentary evidence on record. been admitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that partition has not yet taken place. On the other hand, in the revenue record recorded as the owner of half share of the entire land. sharer along with Smt. Risalo Devi and others. The plaintiff is not even recorded as owner or as possessor of the claim of the plaintiff against co-sharer/present defendant, is not maintainable. effort was made by the plaintiff to examine his mother who had ostensibly given the suit property to him and his Jagdish in the purported Family Settlement. The plaintiff has brothers whose rights had been ly ignored by his mother by giving the suit property only to the Jagdish in a Family Settlement. Therefore, neither any oral nor the documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff to prove that any family settlement has taken place. the revenue Record/Jamabandi for the the suit property is shown to be joint in nature. reveals the suit property to be in joint Singh and Smt. Risalo Devi/mother of n fact, the plaintiff has even failed to prove his Thus, any theory put up by the plaintiff that the suit property has been partitioned between his brother and himself is negated from the documentary evidence on record. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that partition has not in the revenue record the defendant is owner of half share of the entire land. As such, he is co- sharer along with Smt. Risalo Devi and others. The plaintiff is not even recorded as owner or as possessor of the suit property. In any event, sharer/present defendant, is not RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-6515- 13. constructed his house over part of the suit property 6 filing of the present civil suit. Admittedly, at that time no objection has been raised by the appellant 14. the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. 15. 16. 25.07.2025 rishu -2018 (O&M) -7- It may also be pointed out that the respondent had constructed his house over part of the suit property 6 filing of the present civil suit. Admittedly, at that time no objection has been raised by the appellant-plaintiff. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable may also be pointed out that the respondent had constructed his house over part of the suit property 6-7 years before filing of the present civil suit. Admittedly, at that time no objection has , no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.