Punjab-Haryana High Court
Leela Ram Deceased Th Lr Ved Parkash vs Ramji Lal Deceased Th Lrs Vashudev And ... on 6 November, 2025
RSA-844-2015 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
227 RSA-844-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.11.2025
Leela Ram deceased through his Legal representative ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Ramji Lal (deceased) through his Legal representatives ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.10.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate with
Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.11.
Mr. Ajay Mahajan, Advocate for performa respondents
No. 12 and 13.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against
the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below,
whereby suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, has been
dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the
plaintiff and defendants are co-sharers in the suit property which had not
been partitioned by metes and bounds. It is submitted that due to mistake
of revenue officers, there is entry of 'owner in possession' in some part of
the suit property; whereas in actual fact, both the parties are co-sharers in
RSA-844-2015 (O&M) -2-
the suit property. It is contended that accordingly, defendants had no right
to raise any construction over any respective share of the suit property.
Accordingly, injunction could not have been denied to the appellant. It is
accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees of the
learned Courts below deserve to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants vehemently
oppose submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that it is
established position in law that no injunction can be granted against a co-
sharer. Thus, judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below suffer
from no error. They accordingly pray for dismissal of the present appeal.
4. Heard.
5. It is the own case of the plaintiff that the suit property is joint
in nature and has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. It is trite law
that injunction cannot be granted against a co-sharer. In this situation, the
efficacious remedy for the appellant would have been to file suit for
partition. Relevant findings of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Narnaul as recorded in its judgment dated 01.10.2011 are as under:-
"12. After hearing the rival contention of learned counsel
for the parties and perusal of record very carefully, it has
been observed by this Court that stand taken by the
defendant is that suit property has already been partitioned.
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in case titled
Darbara Singh and ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh and ors., Reported
in 1994 (2) LJR 175 that private partition has to be reflected
in revenue record. Plea of partition cannot be taken into
account till implementation of partition - No severance of
RSA-844-2015 (O&M) -3-
states of co-sharer. On perusal of revenue record shows that
both the parties are co-sharers in the suit property. As per
plea of defendant no. 10, he has purchased specific killa
number out of the suit property, therefore, he is in possession
of the specific killa number is not tenable in the eyes of law as
it is settled law that if defendant no. 10 who has purchased
specific killa number out of suit property, even then it cannot
be said from any stretch of imagination that he is in
possession of specific killa number as his purchase land is to
be deemed to the share of his vendor. According to section 41
(h) of Specific Relief Act if an efficacious remedy is available
then no injunction can be granted. Reference to be made in
case titled Kishan Singh Vs. Sucha Singh, reported in 2008-2,
Latest Judicial Reports 663, wherein it has been held by
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that suit for injunction
is not maintainable where the plaintiff has equally efficacious
remedy available - Remedy for getting share in joint property
is partitioned and not injunction. Moreover, Full Bench of
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled Ram
Chander Vs. Bhim Singh and others 2008 (4) Civil Court
Cases 2 (P&H) (FB) has held that a co-owner has an interest
in the whole property and also is every parcel of it (2)
Possession of joint property by one co-owner, is in the eye of
law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of
possession, (3) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even
of an entire 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 exception when there is
ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order to negative the
presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the
ground of ouster, the possession of a co-owner must not only
be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other as,
RSA-844-2015 (O&M) -4-
when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and denies that
of the other, (5) Passage of time does not extinguish the right
of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint
property except in the event of ouster or abandonment, (6)
Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a
husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of
other co-owners; (7) Where a co-owner is in possession of
separate parcels under an arrangement consented by the
other owners, it is not open to anybody to disturb the
arrangement without the consent of other except by filing a
suit for partition."
6. Keeping in view the undisputed position in law, I find no
ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees
of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby
dismissed.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
06.11.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
