108 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7293 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 14, 2025 Ramesh Khatri . . . . Pe22oner vs Darshan . . . . Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Peoner – Ramesh Khatri in person. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. CM-22895-CII-2025 This is an applicaon under Secon 151 CPC to place on record the copies of the jamabandi for the year 2021-22, and Aks Shajra as Annexures A-1 and A-2. Allowed. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record. CR No.7293 of 2025 The peoner is the plainff in Civil Suit No. CS-1307-2023 tled “Ramesh Khatri v. Darshan”, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonipat. Through the present peon filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India, he has assailed the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Addional District Judge, Sonipat, whereby the order of the trial Court dated 09.11.2023 dismissing his applicaon under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been affirmed. 2. The peoner claims to be owner of 411/6760 share in land measuring 3 kanals 18 marlas falling in Khewat No.755//728, Khata No.875, Rect. No.60, Khasra No.10/1/1 situated in village Garhi Brahmanan, District Sonipat. His case before the Courts below was that although the land is joint Sarita Rani 2025.11.17 15:40 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.7293 of 2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 158290 and un-paroned, he has been in possession of a defined poron as per his share, has constructed a boundary wall over the said poron since 2007, and has been enjoying separate electricity and water connecons. According to him, the defendant and other co-sharers were a>empng to interfere in his possession, on account of which he had filed the suit for permanent injuncon and sought temporary injuncve relief to restrain the defendants from encroaching or alienang any part of the land. 3. Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, however, found that though the peoner is a co-sharer in the joint khata, he had failed to substanate his alleged exclusive possession of any specific poron of the suit land. It was noced that despite asserng that he had separate water and electricity connecons, he had not produced any electricity or water bill to establish that the connecon pertained to any specific poron of Khasra No.10/1/1. No photographs of the alleged boundary wall raised in 2007 were produced before the trial Court. For these reasons, the applicaon for injuncon was dismissed in absence of prima facie case. 4. The peoner, appearing in person before this Court, has again relied on the jamabandi, electricity bills and certain photographs. 5. Though, no photographs of the alleged boundary wall raised in 2007 were produced before the trial Court, but even the photographs and electricity bills sought to be relied upon in this revision did not link the construcon or the electricity connecon to the khasra number in dispute. Jamabandi (Annexure A-1) for the year 2021-22 only discloses the share of the peoner as a co-sharer and reflects that all the co-sharers, including the peoner, are shown in joint possession of the enre khasra number, with no indicaon of exclusive possession of any defined poron by any party. 6. Thus, the fraconal share of plainff in joint khata does not in itself establish his exclusive possession over any demarcated poron. The electricity bills do not carry any correlaon to the land in queson and cannot indicate that the connecon has been installed in any part of Khasra No.10/1/1. The photographs, similarly, cannot establish that the construcon Sarita Rani 2025.11.17 15:40 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.7293 of 2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 158290 shown therein relates to the suit khasra. In fact, the peoner himself admits that no paron proceedings have taken place. 7. It is well se>led that in the absence of paron, every co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of the joint land. A co-sharer cannot seek injuncon against another co-sharer unless he demonstrates exclusive and se>led possession of a defined poron to the exclusion of others. The Supreme Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 P&H 528, and later in Gurbachan Singh v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 2010 P&H 77, has reiterated that injuncon between co-sharers is impermissible unless exclusive possession is clearly proved. This Court too has consistently held, including in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204, that mere asseron without documentary proof does not entle one co-sharer to injunct another from exercising similar rights over joint property. 8. In the present case, the peoner has failed to show even prima facie that he is in exclusive possession of any defined poron. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on a correct appreciaon of the record and disclose no perversity, illegality or jurisdiconal error. The supervisory jurisdicon under Arcle 227 is limited and is not intended to be invoked to reappraise evidence or substute factual findings, when the Courts below have adopted a reasonable and lawful view of the ma>er. 9. In the absence of any material irregularity in the impugned orders, there is no ground to interfere. Finding no merit in the peon, the same is dismissed. November 14, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.11.17 15:40 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order