RSA No.436 of 2024 (O&M) S. No.122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.436 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 Rajinder Kaur .....Appellant Vs. Hardev Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ranbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Defendant of the case is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for permanent injunc%on filed by plain%ff – Hardev Singh (contesng respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 25.01.2023 and the appeal filed by the defendant i.e. appellant herein was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 11.12.2023. 2. Concededly, par%es are co-sharers in the land measuring 20 kanal 05 marlas. However, plain%ff sought injunc%on in respect of 08 kanals of land as comprised in Khewat No.38, Khatouni No.86 Rectangle No.18, Killa No.2 as detailed in the headnote of the plaint on the ground that he is in exclusive possession thereof. Defendant contested the suit on the ground that every co- sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of the property. She denied the exclusive possession of the plain%ff on the suit land. 3. A5er framing issues and taking evidence, both the Courts below found the plain%ff to be in exclusive possession of the suit land and as such, the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit has been upheld by the Appellate Court. Page No.1 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.436 of 2024 (O&M) 4. Assailing the afore-said finding, learned counsel contends that as the appellant- defendant is one of the co-sharers, so no injunc%on could be granted against her in favour of the plain%ff- respondent. 5. There is no merit in the conten%on of ld. counsel that the injunc%on cannot be granted in favour of one co-sharer against the other, in the facts and circumstances of present case. 6. The inter se rights and liabili%es of the co-sharers have been discussed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204, in which the Full Bench noted the earlier decision of Division Bench in Sant Ram Nagina Ram Vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and Ors., AIR 1961 PUNJAB 528, wherein the following proposi%ons were se9led:- (1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it. (2) Possession of the joint property by one co-owner is in the eye of law, posses- sion of all even if all but one are actually out of possession. (3) A mere occupa%on of a larger por%on or even of an en%re joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all. (4) The above rule admits of an excep%on when there is ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order to nega%ve the presump%on of joint possession on be- half of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession, of a co-owner must not only be exclusive but also hos%le to the knowledge of the other, as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own %tle and denies that of the other. (5) Passage of %me does not ex%nguish the right of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or aban- donment. (6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like man- ner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners. Page No.2 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.436 of 2024 (O&M) (7) Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other co-owners, it is not open to anyone to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for par%- %on. (8) The remedy of a co-owner not in possession, or not in possession of a share of the joint property, is by way of a suit for par%%on or for actual joint pos- session, but not for ejectment. Same is the case where a co-owner sets up an exclusive %tle in himself. (9) Where a por%on of the joint property is, by common consent of the co-own- ers, reserved for a par%cular common purpose, it cannot be diverted to an inconsistent user by a co-owner; if he does so, he is liable to be ejected and the par%cular parcel will be liable to be restored to its original condi%on. It is not necessary in such a case to show that special damage has been suffered.” 7. Later, in Bachan Singh vs. Swaran Singh [2000(3) RCR (Civil) 70], the Division Bench of this court inter-alia held as under: "15. On a considera%on of the judicial pronouncements on the subject, we are of the opinion that : (i) a co-owner who is not in possession of any part of the property is not en%tled to seek an injunc%on against another co-owner who has been in exclusive possession of the common property unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster, prejudicial or adverse to the interest of co- owner out of possession. (ii) Mere making of construc%on or improvement of, in, the common property does not amount to ouster. (iii) If by the act of the co-owner in possession the value or u%lity of the property is diminished, then a co-owner out of possession can certainly seek an injunc%on to prevent the diminu%on of the value and u%lity of the property. (iv) If the acts of the co-owner in possession are detrimental to the interest of other co-owners, a co-owner out of possession can seek an injunc%on to prevent such act which is detrimental to his interest. authen%city of this order/judgment. Page No.3 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.436 of 2024 (O&M) In all other cases, the remedy of the co-owner out of possession of the property is to seek par%%on, but not an injunc%on restraining the co-owner in possession from doing any act in exercise of his right to every inch of it which he is doing as a co-owner." 8. It is evident from the aforesaid legal proposi%ons that though every co-owner has an interest in whole of the property and also in every parcel of it and possession of joint property by one co-sharer is possession of all in the eyes of law, but in case the co-owner is in possession under an arrangement, then it is not open to anybody to disturb that arrangement, without the consent of others except by filing the suit for par%%on. If the acts of the co-owners in possession are detrimental to the interest of other co-owners, it is only in that case that a co- owner out of possession can seek an injunc%on to prevent such act, which is detrimental to his interest, otherwise the remedy of the co-owner out of possession of the property is to seek par%%on, but not an injunc%on restraining the co-owner in possession from doing any act in exercise of his right to every inch of it, which he is doing as a co-sharer. 9. In the present case, it has been found by the Courts below on the basis of evidence on record that plain%ff is proved to be in exclusive possession of the suit land. The entry in the jamabandi and also the Khasra Girdawari show the exclusive possession of the plain%ff on the suit land. The presump%on of truth is a9ached to said entries, though the said presump%on is rebu9able. Defendant could not rebut the said presump%on. 10. In view of the legal posi%on as has been discussed above, as the plain%ff i.e. respondent herein has been found to be in exclusive possession over the suit property, the remedy of a co-sharer out of possession i.e., appellant – defendant is to seek par%%on against the co-sharer in exclusive possession of the suit land. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly granted decree of permanent injunc%on in favour of plain%ff, which has been rightly affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The Courts below did not commit any error in decreeing the suit so as to protect the exclusive possession of the plain%ff on the suit land against his forcible dispossession. Page No.4 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.436 of 2024 (O&M) 11. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. April 02, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No.5 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh