The High Court reaffirmed that a co-sharer cannot sustain a suit for permanent injunction over joint property without evidence of exclusive possession and partition; this ruling upholds settled law, provides binding authority within Punjab & Haryana, and clarifies procedural requirements for future property disputes among co-sharers.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/44/2019 of GURVAIL SINGH Vs JAGPREET SINGH AND ANR |
| CNR | PHHC011473192018 |
| Date of Registration | 08-01-2019 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench (MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled law that injunction over joint property by co-sharer not maintainable without exclusive possession |
| Type of Law | Civil / Property Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a co-sharer can maintain a suit for permanent injunction over joint property in the absence of partition or exclusive possession. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | As per judgment: No specific precedent cited or detailed, but law described as settled. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The legal reasoning rests on the principle that co-sharers in joint property must seek partition before claiming injunction; absence of exclusive possession is determinative. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiff and others jointly owned land; after execution of a disputed sale deed by a deceased co-sharer, plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain defendants from taking possession without partition. Plaintiff admitted he did not have exclusive possession. Previous suit challenging sale deed was dismissed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other Indian High Courts considering similar property disputes among co-sharers |
| Follows | Follows settled law that a co-sharer without exclusive possession cannot maintain a suit for injunction over joint property |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the necessity for a co-sharer to prove exclusive possession (or seek partition) before seeking injunction against other co-sharers.
- Clarifies that mere entry in khasra girdwari (revenue records) showing joint possession is insufficient for granting perpetual injunction if no partition or exclusive possession is shown.
- Lawyers should ensure inclusion of pleadings and evidence of exclusive possession if seeking such relief.
- Dismissal of related litigation challenging underlying sale deed forecloses collateral or connected claims for exclusive relief in joint property.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that the property remained in joint ownership among co-sharers; no partition had taken place.
- The plaintiff-appellant admitted during cross-examination that he was not in exclusive possession.
- Previous efforts by representatives of a deceased co-sharer to challenge the sale deed were dismissed.
- The First Appellate Court held that, under settled law, absent exclusive possession or partition, a co-sharer cannot maintain a mere injunction suit against other co-sharers.
- The High Court concurred, stating no substantial question of law arose and the First Appellate Court correctly applied the law.
- The suit was rightly dismissed, and the second appeal lacked merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that revenue records (two khasra girdwari entries) showed possession in his favour, justifying the grant of permanent injunction.
- Argued the Trial Court rightly considered these entries and erred in reversal.
Respondent
- Contended the property was jointly owned; no exclusive possession by plaintiff.
- Cited ownership by multiple co-sharers, including themselves, via sale deed.
- Noted the plaintiff had already challenged the sale deed in a different suit, which was dismissed.
- Asserted the injunction suit was not maintainable absent partition or exclusive possession.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from joint ownership of agricultural land among family members and co-sharers, including the plaintiff and defendants. A sale deed for part of the land was executed by one co-sharer (now deceased), which the plaintiff claimed was invalid and not binding, citing lack of consideration and improper execution. The property was adjacent to the defendants’ lands, and the plaintiff feared forcible dispossession without partition. The trial court decreed the suit based on revenue record entries, but the first appellate court reversed upon finding no exclusive possession by the plaintiff and dismissed previous challenges to the sale deed. The High Court, in second appeal, examined these findings.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment turned on general principles of property law regarding injunctions for co-sharers, particularly the requirement for exclusive possession or partition.
- The court referred to the effect of entries in khasra girdwari (revenue record), noting their evidentiary value is limited where jointness is admitted.
- The suit for injunction was contrasted with a claim for partition, clarifying procedural requirements for co-sharers.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed and applied settled principles regarding injunctions and joint property among co-sharers.