IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.242/2025 Date of Decision: 13th November, 2025. Keshav Dhiman .....Appellant Versus Ranjeet Singh …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondent: 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 25.07.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, HP in Civil Appeal No.2/2024, affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dalhousie, District Chamba, HP, in Civil Suit No.74 of 2021. 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. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that The plaintiff, defendant, and other co-sharers were recorded as joint owners-in-possession of the suit land as per the jamabandi for the years 2015-16. The plaintiff's case was that the suit land remained joint and none of the co-sharers could change its nature or raise construction until it was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 partitioned by metes and bounds. It was alleged that in the last week of May 2021, the defendant started digging on a valuable portion of the land exceeding his share and collected construction materials to raise an illegal structure at a rapid pace. Despite requests from the plaintiff, the defendant refused to desist, leading the plaintiff to seek a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the construction and a mandatory injunction to restore the land to its original condition if construction was completed. 3. The defendant contested the suit, claiming the suit property was originally the sole property of one Shri Gopala and, upon his death, devolved upon his sons and daughters. He asserted that during Gopala's lifetime, demarcated plots were allotted to his three sons, including the defendant's father, under a family arrangement, and they had raised construction on their respective plots 40 years ago. The defendant claimed the plaintiff's father had purchased shares from other heirs by misrepresentation, and the plaintiff was never in possession. The defendant admitted to starting construction in April 2021 but only to renovate his existing, dilapidated house on the old plinth and line, denying any construction on vacant land or in excess of his share. He argued that restraining the construction would cause him irreparable loss due to the purchased materials. 3 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 30.03.2022:- 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 7. Relief 5. After evidence, the trial court partly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, arguing that the trial court's judgment was against law and facts, ignored material facts suppressed by the plaintiff, such as construction by other co-sharers and the extent of the appellant's construction up to the lintel level at the suit's filing, and failed to appreciate that the plaintiff did not prove the defendant was constructing beyond his share. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, therefore, the defendant has preferred the present regular second appeal. 6. Heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgements. 7. In the present case, the jamabandis, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C, establish that the plaintiff and the defendant are joint owners, or co-sharers, in the suit land, which comprises 4 both built-up structures and vacant land. The plaintiff's assertion that his father purchased a share in the suit land and took possession is accepted, and the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's status as a co-sharer is not sustained by the evidence. 8. It is an admitted position, as per the plaintiff's own cross-examination, that the defendant's grandfather, Gopala, effected a partition or family arrangement during his lifetime, allotting specific demarcated plots to his sons, including the defendant's father. It is further admitted that an old ancestral house, belonging to the defendant's father, existed on the suit land for approximately forty years, along with an adjoining iron- sheeted shed, and that this structure was in a dilapidated condition. The defendant commenced construction in the second week of April 2021 on the site of this old structure, along its old lines and dimensions. 9. The plaintiff's claim that the defendant is constructing on a portion exceeding his share remains unsubstantiated. The plaintiff has failed to plead or prove the specific share of each co-sharer in the suit land, the area of the plot his father allegedly took possession of, or the precise area by which the defendant's construction allegedly exceeds his entitlement. A co-sharer is not entitled to a blanket injunction against another co-sharer simply by virtue of their joint ownership, unless the acts of the co-sharer in possession amount to an ouster of the others. The mere raising of a construction, particularly one that 5 replaces a pre-existing, dilapidated structure on a plot long held under a family arrangement, does not, in itself, constitute ouster. The plaintiff has not discharged the onus of proving that the defendant's actions are tantamount to ouster or are prejudicially affecting the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property in a material way. 10. The principle that a co-sharer in possession is entitled to enjoy the property, including making improvements, unless it causes material detriment to the other co-shares, applies. The defendant's act of reconstructing a dilapidated dwelling on the plot historically in his family's exclusive possession does not, on the facts and evidence presented, demonstrate such detriment. The plaintiff's claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction is, therefore, not made out. Consequently, the relief of mandatory injunction, being contingent on the success of the prohibitory injunction, also fails. The preliminary objections regarding maintainability, clean hands, locus standi, and cause of action are decided against the defendant, as the plaintiff has established his status as a co-sharer and a cause of action for seeking adjudication of his rights, though he has ultimately failed to prove his case for injunctive relief. In view of the same the findings of the First Appellate Court reversing the Findings of the Trial Court are upheld. 11. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial 6 question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 13th November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat/TB)