1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.276 of 2025 Date of Decision : 15.12.2025 Jagdish Kumar …… Appellant Versus Khem Singh and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Sumit Sood and Mr. Kuldip Chandel, Advocates. For the respondents : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.06 of 2021/20, titled Jagdish Kumar vs. Khem Singh and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2020, passed by learned Civil Judge, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.109/2014, were affirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The facts of the present case are that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and others, including the defendants. The defendants became co-sharers approximately 2-3 months prior to the filing of the suit by purchasing 00-02-00 bighas of land each. Without obtaining no objection from the other co-sharers for raising construction upon the joint land, the defendants started digging the best portion of the suit land, which has been under the plaintiff's possession for 9-10 years prior to the defendants' purchase. 4. The plaintiff had levelled the portion of the suit land measuring 00-07-02 bighas, situated near the Pathankot-Mandi National Highway, after taking possession from the seller. On the intervening night of 21.05.2014 and 22.05.2014, the defendants deployed labour and commenced digging work to raise RCC pillars for constructing a building. The plaintiff's requests to desist were ignored, leading to the filing of the suit for injunction. The defendants contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, non-joinder, and mis-joinder of necessary parties. They denied the plaintiff's possession, asserted their own lawful possession through registered sale deeds, and claimed the plaintiff had previously filed a collusive suit for adverse possession and a civil suit for injunction which was dismissed. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed issues, which are as under: 1. Whether on 21.05.2014 and on 22.05.2014, the defendants being co-sharers, without consent of other co-sharers started raising construction over the joint land, if so its effect? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction ? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by principle of resjudicata? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, if so its effect ? OPD 9. Relief.” 6. After trial, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the first appeal, assailing the judgment and decree on grounds inter alia that the findings were contrary to law and facts, based on surmises, and that the Court failed to appreciate the settled principle that possession of one co-sharer is possession of all. It was contended that the defendants could not raise new construction on the joint land without partition or consent, and the trial court erroneously held that other co-sharers were necessary parties, ignoring the law that even a single co-sharer can sue for injunction to protect the joint property. It was further argued that the evidence was not appreciated properly, applicable law was ignored, and the judgment was passed in a perfunctory manner. The first Appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Trial Court's decree. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal. 7. Heard Counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments. 4 8. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the premise that the suit land is joint property and the defendants, being co-sharers, commenced construction on what is alleged to be the best portion of the land without obtaining the consent or no-objection from the other co-shares. The foundational legal principle, that the possession of one co-sharer is, in the eyes of the law, possession of all co-sharers, is acknowledged. However, this principle must be applied in the context of the specific factual matrix and the nature of the claims advanced. 9. The plaintiff's entire case rests on the characterization of the defendants' actions as a unilateral usurpation of common property. Yet, this characterization must be tested against the established legal corollary that where co-shares are, by mutual arrangement or acquiescence, in separate possession of specific parcels, the law will seek to protect that existing state of possession until a formal partition alters it. The defendants' assertion, supported by sale deeds, is that they are building upon a portion that was in the specific and exclusive possession of their predecessor-in-interest, who validly transferred not merely a share but the possession of a specific parcel. This creates a critical factual dispute that goes to the very heart of the plaintiff's entitlement to an injunction. 10. On the merits of the injunction sought, the law is settled that a co-sharer cannot ordinarily seek a restraint order against another co-sharer from undertaking construction on the joint property merely by virtue of the jointness. To succeed, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants' acts are detrimental to the common interest, would cause ouster, or would diminish the value or utility of the property. The plaintiff has failed to 5 discharge this burden. The record reveals that the defendants purchased specific portions through registered sale deeds and were put in possession by their vendor, which is a permissible exercise of a co-sharer's rights. The plaintiff has not led cogent evidence to prove that the construction is on a uniquely valuable portion to the exclusion of all others, or that it will cause irreparable prejudice or diminish the overall value of the joint holding. In the absence of proof of ouster or specific detriment, the defendants, as co- shares in possession of their purchased portions, cannot be injuncted from raising construction. 11. The findings of the Courts below on these issues, being based on a correct appreciation of the law and evidence, do not warrant interference. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) December 15, 2025 (KS) Judge