2026:HHC:24066 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.61 of 2026 Reserved on:16.06.2026 Decided on: 22.06.2026 Mohan Dutt ….Petitioner Versus Lok Nath & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the judgment, as passed by learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, dated 02.01.2026, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants has been partly allowed and the order, as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., dated 26.06.2024 qua Khasra Nos.21 and 75 was ordered to be set aside, whereas order qua Khasra Nos.14, 20,15, 16 and 17 was affirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff, Mohan Dutt, filed a suit under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for permanent prohibitory injunction. As per the averments as 2 2026:HHC:24066 made in the plaint, the plaintiff and defendants are co-owners in possession of the suit land as described in the body of the plaint, total measuring 09-28-31 hectare (92831 Sq Meters), situated at Mauza Anji Brahamna, Hadbast No.689, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. As per the case as set up by the plaintiff the suit land is joint amongst the plaintiff, defendants and other co-sharers and as such, no co-owner has any right, title or interest to interfere in the joint suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff that no co-sharer has got the right to sell, alienate or dispose of any portion of the joint suit land, changing its nature or raise any kind of construction over any portion of joint suit land without getting the same partitioned by metes and bounds. 3. As per the plaintiff, on the application of defendants, the partition of the suit land was conducted, but the same was conducted in an illegal and unlawful manner and against the spirit and guidelines as laid down by the Financial Commissioner, State of Himachal Pradesh. The said partition was not acceptable to the plaintiff, hence, he preferred an appeal against the said partition proceedings, which is still pending before the Financial Commissioner, Shimla. The Financial Commissioner, Shimla, has passed an order of status quo with respect to the suit land. However, the defendants are violating the order of the said 3 2026:HHC:24066 authority in an illegal and unlawful manner. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are quarrelsome persons, who have no regard for the law. On the basis of the illegal partition, which is under challenge, the defendants are claiming a specific portion of the suit land. Despite the order of status quo, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Shimla, they have started interfering in the joint suit land, especially in Khasra Nos. 21, 14, 20, 15, 16, 17 and 75. Furthermore, they are trying to raise construction on the best and prime portion of the suit land. The defendants have started levelling the plot with the help of JCB Machine on the best and prime portion of the suit land in an illegal manner without getting the suit land partitioned by metes and bounds. Though, the defendants were requested to desist from their wrong and illegal acts and not to interfere in the suit land, but they have failed to do so. 4. The plaintiff prayed for the passing of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering in the suit land, and from selling, alienating or disposing of any best or prime portion of the suit land or cutting and removing any valuable trees and bushes from the suit land. Further, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from raising any kind of construction in and over any portion of 4 2026:HHC:24066 the suit land or causing any type of damage to the suit land and from changing the nature of suit land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.1/1 to 3, Khasra Nos. 1, 3, 5, 30, 34, 52, 54, 92, 109, 119, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 145, 46, 51, 56, 57, 59, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 78, 81, 84, 85, 86, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 111, 112, 113, 114, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 32, 33, 38, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 91, 97, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 115, 116, 117, 118, Kitas 117, total measuring 09-28-31 hectare (92831 Sq. Mtrs.), to the extent of his share, situated at Mauza Anji Brahamna, Hadbast No. 689, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan (H.P.) as per copy of jamabandi for the year 2014-2015. 5. Along with the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for the grant of interim injunction against the defendants/respondents. It was prayed in the application that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the suit land and from selling, alienating or disposing of any best or prime portion of the suit land or cutting and removing any valuable trees and bushes from the suit land or raising any kind of construction in 5 2026:HHC:24066 and over any portion of the suit land during the pendency of the suit till the time the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. 6. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising various preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action etc. On merits, it was averred in the written statement that though, it is admitted that the suit land was joint inter se the parties, however, the suit land has been partitioned and the instrument of partition has been drawn between the parties on 05.06.2013. The plaintiff and his brothers have challenged the order dated 22.02.2013, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kasauli, before the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan. The Sub Divisional Collector, Solan, dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 26.11.2014. Pursuant to that, the plaintiff preferred revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The Divisional Commissioner, Shimla vide its order dated 24.05.2016, dismissed the revision petition filed by the plaintiff. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff preferred second revision before the Financial Commissioner, Shimla, which is still pending. It was specifically stated that the plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying separate possession of the specific Khasra numbers over the suit land. The plaintiff and his brothers have also raised new construction on specific khasra numbers 6 2026:HHC:24066 adjoining the road. Similarly, the defendants have also raised construction on the land which is in their possession. 8. As per the defendants, the plaintiff is in the habit of filing false cases against them, Earlier, the plaintiff and his brother filed a civil suit No. 54/1 of 2014 tilted as Kamal Dutt and others Vs. Lok Nath and others, in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli and the said Court dismissed the case with cost on 27.11.2015. It has been stated that, in the earlier civil suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, passed an order, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land till the final decision of the main suit. The plaintiff, despite the passing of status quo order, constructed the staircase of his building wrongly, illegally and forcibly. It is the case of the defendants that Khasra Nos.21 and 75 have been recorded in their possession. All the averments as made in the plaint were refuted and denied. The defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. 9. The defendants also contested the application by filing a reply and prayed for the dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff. 10. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District, Solan vide its order dated 26.06.2024 allowed the application filed 7 2026:HHC:24066 by the plaintiff/petitioner by directing the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and alienation of the suit land, situated at Mauza Anji Brahamna, Pargana Bhaget, Hadbast No. 689, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. until lawful partition of the suit and till the disposal of the main suit. 11. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC against the order as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. dated 26.06.2024 in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan. Learned first appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 02.01.2026 partly accepted the appeal preferred by the defendants and the injunction order qua Khasra Nos.21 and 75 was ordered to be vacated and the order of learned trial Court was affirmed with respect to Khasra Nos.14, 20, 15, 16 and 17. 12. Feeling dissatisfied by the impugned judgment as passed by learned Distinct Judge, Solan, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is contended by Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, for the petitioner that the impugned judgment as passed by learned District Judge is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set 8 2026:HHC:24066 aside. He submitted that the learned first appellate Court has wrongly passed the impugned judgment by setting aside the order of learned trial Court with respect to Khasra Nos.21 and 75. He further submitted that the learned first appellate Court has not appreciated the real point of controversy and has wrongly decided the case in hand. Therefore, after accepting the present petition, the application, which was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner qua the suit land, including Khasra Nos.21 and 75, deserves to be allowed. It is contended by learned senior counsel that he is under instructions to submit that he shall be restricting his claim qua Khasra No.21 only, and he shall not be agitating the findings as returned by learned first appellate Court qua Khasra No.75. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Vipin Pandit, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents has defended the impugned judgment as passed by learned District Judge, Solan. He submitted that the learned first appellate Court has rightly appreciated the point in controversy. After taking into consideration the documentary evidence placed on record in conjunction with the pleadings, the learned first appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment, which does not call for any interference, especially while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9 2026:HHC:24066 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case file. 16. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties, including him and the defendants are co-owners in possession of the suit land, total measuring 09-28-31 hectare (92831 Sq Meters), situated at Mauza Anji Brahamna, Hadbast No.689, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. The case as set up by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court is that the defendants had filed an application for the partition of the suit land. However, the said partition was conducted in an illegal and unlawful manner. It is the case of the plaintiff that the proceedings which were initiated by the defendants before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kasauli, are now pending before the Financial Commissioner, Shimla. Though the order of status quo has been passed by the Financial Commissioner, Shimla, however, the defendants, who are quarrelsome persons, are bent upon to change the nature of the suit land, especially Khasra Nos.21, 14, 20, 15, 16 and 75. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants be restrained from changing the nature, alienation, selling or raising construction on the suit land without getting it partitioned by metes and bounds, and without the consent and permission of the plaintiff and other co-owners. The plaintiff has sought the decree of injunction by 10 2026:HHC:24066 restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land in any manner. The specific case of the plaintiff, as set up before the learned trial Court is that till the time the suit land is partitioned by metes and bounds, the defendants be restrained from interfering in the suit land, selling, alienating or disposing of any best or prime portion of the suit land or cutting and removing any valuable trees and bushes from the suit land or raising any kind of construction in and over any portion of the suit land. 17. The defendants have categorically denied the case as set up by the plaintiff by stating that the suit land has been partitioned and the instrument of partition stood drawn on 05.06.2013. As per the defendants, the plaintiff and his brothers had challenged the order dated 22.02.2013, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kasauli, before the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan. The Sub Divisional Collector also dismissed the appeal as preferred by the plaintiff on 26.11.2014. The plaintiff filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, who vide its order dated 24.05.2016 dismissed the revision petition. Still feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed second revision before the Financial Commissioner, Shimla, which is still pending. 11 2026:HHC:24066 18. It is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying separate possession of the specific Khasra numbers of the suit land. The stand as adopted by the defendants is that the plaintiff and his brothers have also raised new construction on specific Khasra number adjoining the road. Earlier also, the plaintiff and his brothers had filed a civil suit No. 54/1 of 2014 which came to be dismissed on 27.11.2015. 19. A perusal of the revenue record shows that Khasra No.21 is shown in the possession of the defendants. A copy of jamabandi has been placed on record by the defendants, which is part of the paper book at page 168. The classification of Khasra No.21 has been shown to be ghasni. Similarly, Khasra No.75 is also shown to be in possession of the defendants and is classified as barani abbal. The revenue record placed on record clearly demonstrates that the disputed Khasra numbers are in the exclusive possession of the defendants. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that it is the defendants who have got prima facie case in their favour. 20. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has also raised construction on specific Khasra numbers adjoining to the road. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to 12 2026:HHC:24066 institute the present suit for injunction on the premise that the suit land is joint. As such, the defendants should be restrained from raising any construction until the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. The said fact has not been disputed rather, it stands admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have raised construction over the suit land. However, the defendants are raising the construction over the best and valuable portion of the suit land, including Khasra No.21. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff qua the entire suit land measuring 09-28-31 hectare (92831 Sq Meters). Admittedly, the suit land is more than 100 bighas on the spot. The plaintiff has not specified in the plaint that which portion of the suit land is best and valuable. There is no description or identification of the land in the plaint which may demonstrate or show that the particular portion of specific Khasra numbers is the most valuable portion of the land. Copy of jamabandi reveals that Khasra No.21 has been classified as the ghasni in the revenue records. 21. In the plaint, it has not been specifically stated or identified that over which best portion of the suit land, the defendants are raising the construction. The allegations as levelled by the plaintiff are vague, cryptic and imaginary. Once, 13 2026:HHC:24066 the plaintiff himself has raised the construction over the joint land, it does not lie in his mouth that the defendants be restrained from raising any construction over the joint land until the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. In order to get the equitable and discretionary relief of injunction, the plaintiff has to pass the triplicate tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The plaintiff has failed to establish and prove that he has got a prima facie case in his favour. Rather, the revenue record shows that the suit land, including Khasra Nos.21 and 75 is exclusively possessed by the defendants. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the defendants. Once, it is admitted by the plaintiff that he himself has raised the construction over the joint land, the defendants cannot be restrained from raising own construction as doing so shall cause irreparable loss to the defendants/respondents. 22. The case of the plaintiff that suit land is joint and the co-sharer has got no right to raise construction over the joint land and that he is entitled to seek an injunction against the defendants from raising the construction is against the mandate of law as has been laid down by this Court. 23. This Court in Ashok Kapoor Versus Murtu Devi 2016 (1) Shimla Law Cases 207 has held that a co-sharer 14 2026:HHC:24066 cannot be restrained from raising construction on the joint land on the ground that he has no right to raise construction on the joint land. After an exhaustive review of the case law, it was held as under:- “46. On consideration of the various judicial pronouncements and on the basis of the dominant view taken in these decisions on the rights and liabilities of the co-sharers and their rights to raise construction to the exclusion of others, the following principles can conveniently be laid down:- (i) A co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in the common property absolutely and simply because he is a co- owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of possession. (ii) Mere making of construction 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 utility of the property is diminished, then a co-owner out of possession can certainly seek an injunction to prevent the diminution of the value and utility 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 injunction to prevent such an act, which is detrimental to his interest. (v) Before an injunction is issued, the plaintiff has to establish that he would sustain, by the act he complains of some injury, which materially would 15 2026:HHC:24066 affect his position or his enjoyment, or an accustomed user of the joint property would be inconvenienced or interfered with. (vi) the question as to what relief should be granted is left to the discretion of the Court in the attending circumstances on the balance of convenience and the exercise of its discretion the Court will be guided by consideration of justice, equity and good conscience.” 24. To the similar extent this Court in Piar Chand and others Versus Sandhya Devi and others 2017 (2) Shim.LC 1040 has held that where the plaintiff has failed to lead evidence to prove that the proposed construction of the defendants will diminish the value or utility of property or the same is detrimental to the interest of other co-owners including the plaintiff, the suit cannot have been decreed. 25. In Ramesh Kumar vs. Sheetal and others 2021(1) Shim.LC 377, it was held as follows: “17. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that a co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in the common property absolutely and simply because he is a co-owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of possession. The mere making of construction or improvement in the common property does not amount 16 2026:HHC:24066 to ouster rather, if by any act of the co-owner in possession the value or utility of the property is diminished, then a co-owner out of possession can certainly seek an injunction to prevent the diminution of the value and utility of the property. 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 injunction to prevent such an act which is detrimental to his interest.” 26. As per the exposition of law, as referred above, a co- sharer cannot be restrained from raising construction over the joint land unless it is shown that such an act would prejudice the rights of the other side. Mere raising of construction or improvement does not amount to ouster as laid down by this Court. 27. The learned counsel for the defendants has vehemently argued that the plaintiff himself has raised the construction over the joint land, which is just adjacent to the road and the said fact has been admitted by the parties as well as the learned counsel. Therefore, the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the defendants is correct that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has concealed the material facts from this Court as on the one hand he has utilized the joint land on the other hand when the defendants are trying to utilize the suit land, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit. 17 2026:HHC:24066 Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary and equitable relief of inunction when he has suppressed and withheld the material particulars from the Court. It is well settled principle of law that a person who claims equity must also do equity. 28. A co-sharer cannot injunct the other co-sharers on the ground that the suit land is joint amongst the parties when he himself has raised the construction over the suit land. 29. The law as laid down by this Court has held that the person who seeks equity must do equity. Therefore, a co-sharer who himself has raised the construction cannot seek the injunction against the other co-sharer setting the plea of joint land. 30. This Court in Smt. Kalawati vs. Netar Singh AIR 2016 HP 85 has held as follows: “10. It would be evident from the decision, the mere fact that the parties are co-owners and joint owners etc. is not the sole criterion for granting or refusing the injunction, the conduct of the parties too plays an important role and in such like cases, the plaintiff conduct has to be free from blame so as to enable the court to conclude that the plaintiff has approached the Court with clean hands. But here is a case where the petitioner though claims herself to be a joint owner with the respondents after having already raised construction over the suit land seeks an injunction against the respondents without even disclosing this fact. 18 2026:HHC:24066 11. The injunction being an equitable relief, the person seeking an injunction must come with clean hands. The well-known mechanism that applies in such a matter is "he who seeks equity must do equity". Since the petitioner has admittedly raised construction of her house(s) on a portion of the suit land, she is estopped and has waived her right to assail and question the construction being raised by the respondents. The fact that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands in itself is sufficient ground for not granting the relief of injunction.” 31. To the similar extent is the judgment in Raj Kumar versus Rakesh Kumar 2022 2 Shim LC 1083 wherein it was observed as under: “5(a) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had already raised construction over the suit land alleged by him to be the joint land of the parties along with other co- sharers. This fact was not disclosed by the plaintiff in the manner it ought to have been stated in the plaint. The plaintiff in a round about manner averred that the defendant was trying to block the air and light of the house of the plaintiff existing over the suit land. Prima facie observation of both the learned courts below that the plaintiff had himself raised construction on the best and most valuable portion of the suit land also assumes significance. It is well settled that when a person seeks equity, he must come with clean hands. 5(b) It is admitted fact that Sh. Kartar Chand brother of the petitioner/plaintiff and one of the co-sharer had also raised construction over the suit land in the year 2010. It is not the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he 19 2026:HHC:24066 had objected to the construction work done by his brother over the suit land or that the plaintiff had instituted any civil suit for restraining his brother from raising construction over the suit land. It is apparent that the petitioner/plaintiff has selectively chosen the respondent/defendant for filing the suit for injunction. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice the following references:- In (2010) 3 Shimla L.C. 205, titled Payar Singh Vs. Narayan Dass and others, the respondents pleaded themselves to be in settled separate possession of joint land in family partition over which they were raising construction. They also took up a stand that the petitioner had also constructed his house over the land in his possession. The Court upheld the contentions of the respondents. The following observations made in the judgment are material : “12. The respondents in the written statement have specifically pleaded that parties are in separate possession under the family arrangement. The petitioner has also constructed his house on the joint land. It is not the stand of the petitioner that respondents are raising construction in an area which is more than their share. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has constructed his house on a better portion of the land. The under construction house of the respondents is away from National Highway 21 whereas the house of the petitioner abuts N. H.21. The respondents have placed on record on the file of revision photographs construction of an under- construction house of the respondents. The photographs indicate the sufficient gap between the already constructed house of the petitioner and the 20 2026:HHC:24066 under-construction house of the respondents over which even a slab has been placed. It is the case of the respondents in the written statement that they are in separate possession of the land in the family arrangement. This fact has not been denied by filing replication. The respondents are claiming possession over the suit land under family arrangement i.e. with the consent of the petitioner over which they are raising construction. The respondents have thus established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in their favour. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. In revision, the scope is limited as held in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76. The suit is for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The rights of the parties will be decided in the suit. It has not been established that the view taken by the learned District Judge does not emerge from the material on record.” xxxxxxxxx In a judgment dated 03.09.2021, delivered in CMPMO No. 555 of 2018, Ajay Kumar Vs. Ishwar Dutt, it was held that when a co-sharer himself raises a construction over the joint land when a cosharer does not object to the raising of construction over the joint land by some other co-owners, then, he cannot seek to restrain one specific co-owner from raising construction over part of the suit land, more so, when the construction being raised by that particular co- owner is over a portion, which, as per the revenue record, is in his possession along with others and 21 2026:HHC:24066 when the plaintiff has not been shown in possession of this specific portion of land. Placing reliance upon various authorities, defendants in CMPMO No. 77 of 2021, titled Smt. Vyasa Devi Vs. Harish Kumar were permitted to undertake construction inter-alia on the ground that the plaintiff had also carried out construction on the joint land. Material observations made by the Court on facts are as under:- “10. The facts involved in the case have been narrated by me hereinabove and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the parties are co- sharers of the suit land but the petitioners herein are recorded to be in possession of the portion of the suit land in issue along with other cosharers. It is further not in dispute that the respondents herein are not recorded to be in possession of the suit land. It is also not in dispute that the respondents herein have also carried out construction activities by raising constructions over the joint land, as is evident from the record. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein, who besides being the coowners of the suit land are also recorded to be in possession thereof, cannot be estopped from raising construction pending the adjudication of the civil suit. It is settled law that injunction cannot be granted against a co-sharer and further as the respondents herein themselves have constructed their houses over the joint suit land, in these circumstances, they cannot be permitted to restrain other co-sharers, i.e. present petitioners, from doing so. The construction, which is being carried out by the petitioners, however obviously shall be subject to the final adjudication of the suit as 22 2026:HHC:24066 also partition proceedings, if any, and if the area upon which construction being carried out by the present petitioners ultimately falls in the share of the plaintiffs in partition proceedings, then, of course, consequences will ensue. However, this does not mean that till the suit land is partitioned, the petitioners herein should be restrained from raising construction over the parcel of the suit land in their possession.” CMPMO No.522/2017, decided on 29.11.2018 titled Chanchal Kumar Vs. Prem Parkash & Anr. was a case where the plaintiff was one of the co-sharers over the suit land. He raised construction and filed suit for a prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents from raising construction on the vacant portion of land. The Court held that:- “…..Once, the plaintiff himself raised construction over one portion of the land, it is not understood, how he could raise an objection, if any, qua the construction on the other portion of land, by the defendants, who are admittedly co-owners of the suit land to the extent of one-half share. Needless to say, the applicant, while seeking relief of injunction is required to show that he/she has a prima facie case in his/her favour and balance of convenience also lies in his/her favour, but, in the instant case, aforesaid basic ingredients/conditions are totally missing, rather, very conduct of the plaintiff suggests that he wants to take advantage of the situation.” 32. This position was reiterated in Jai Singh VS Rajeev Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 162 wherein it was observed as under: “19. The fact that in past also different co-owners including the parties to suit have raised construction also weakens the case of plaintiffs. When plaintiffs had 23 2026:HHC:24066 no objection when the coowners had raised construction on different parts of the joint land in the same khata, they must come out with special reasons to raise objections against construction being raised by the defendant. Another fact, which cannot be ignored is that there is another structure on suit land being used as “Panchayat Ghar.” At the time of its construction again there was no objection. Admittedly, no other co-owners have raised any objection to the construction being raised by the defendant. The conduct of plaintiffs smacks of some ulterior purpose than the assertion of any legal right.” 33. The perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that a co-sharer cannot seek an injunction against a co-sharer ordinarily. The Judgment in Ashok Kumar’s case (supra) specially laid down the principle when an injunction can be granted in such like cases and it has been held that a co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining other co-owners from exceeding his rights in the common property absolutely and simply because he is a co- owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster, prejudicial and adverse to the interest of the co-owner. It is a mandate that mere making of the construction or improvement in the common property does not amount to ouster. In the present case also, the suit land is more than100 bighas. The plaintiff has not been able to identify which part of the suit land is the best and valuable portion, or upon which specific part 24 2026:HHC:24066 of the suit land the defendants are raising construction or changing the nature of the suit land. The plaintiff has incorporated the suit land, which is more than 100 bighas. Without any specific pleadings with regard to interference over the specific portion of the suit land, no relief can be granted to him in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. In the revenue record, Khasra No.21 has been shown to be ghashni and Khasra No.75 has been shown as barani abbal. Since the learned counsel has stressed mainly on Khasra No.21, therefore, there is no material on record to show that Khasra No.21 is the best valuable portion of the suit land. The plaintiff has failed to establish and prove the prima face case and balance of inconvenience in his favour. 34. The power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the Courts below function within the limits of their authority or jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, over the last 50 years, it has consistently been observed that the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact or by setting aside the judgments of the Courts below on merits. 25 2026:HHC:24066 35. Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 09.03.2010 has held as follows:- “23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction. 24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case in a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. 25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566. The court observed as under:- "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise 26 2026:HHC:24066 jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." 26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it. 28. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked 27 2026:HHC:24066 except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits. 29. This court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.” 36. To the similar extent, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022, titled as Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, decided on 13.05.2022 has held as follows:- “14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised. 14.1 The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29). Therefore, while 28 2026:HHC:24066 exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 37. Learned first appellate Court has rightly appreciated the point in controversy and rightly quashed the order as passed by learned trial Court with respect to Khasra No.21 and 75. Therefore, this Court is not in agreement with the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment as passed by learned District Judge, Solan, suffers from any infirmity. 38. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 39. It is made clear that any activity carried out by the respective parties shall be subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings pending before the revenue authorities. This court hopes and deems it fit that the partition proceedings shall be 29 2026:HHC:24066 taken to its logical end, preferable within a period of one month from today. 40. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observations made here-in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. Records, if any, be sent back henceforth. (Romesh Verma) Judge 22nd June, 2026 (vt)