The Court reaffirmed that a co-owner not in exclusive possession cannot obtain an injunction against another co-owner’s use or improvement of joint property, unless such acts amount to ouster, are prejudicial, or are detrimental to the co-owner’s interest. The judgment follows and applies existing Full Bench and Division Bench precedents of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, confirming that the proper remedy for a co-owner out of possession is partition, not injunction. This decision is binding on all subordinate courts within the jurisdiction and has strong persuasive value elsewhere for disputes involving co-sharers of undivided property.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1139/2022 of Gurpreet Singh and Anr. Vs Nirmal Kaur |
| CNR | PHHC010553562022 |
| Date of Registration | 21-05-2022 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana; persuasive for other courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil law – Co-ownership, injunction, partition |
| Questions of Law | Whether a co-owner not in exclusive possession can restrain another co-owner from use/construction over joint property absent clear ouster or detriment |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that unless there is proof of ouster, acts prejudicial/adverse, or detriment to the out-of-possession co-owner, an injunction cannot be granted against a co-owner in possession of joint property. Mere construction or improvement does not amount to ouster. Remedy for a co-owner out of possession is partition, not injunction. This follows prior Full Bench and Division Bench judgments. The suit property, being still joint, provides no basis for injunction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interests of co-owners in every parcel, presumption of joint possession, non-extinguishment of right without ouster/abandonment, use in a ‘husband-like manner,’ remedy via partition |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiffs (co-owners) sought injunction to restrain defendant (co-owner) from construction/wiring on unpartitioned joint property. Both courts below found plaintiffs themselves had constructed/cultivated on property; property remained joint; and plaintiffs could not stop defendant from similar use. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that bare use, construction, or improvement by a co-owner does not amount to ouster; injunction cannot be granted to a co-owner out of possession solely on this ground.
- Confirms that, lacking proof of ouster or acts detrimental/prejudicial to another co-owner, the right remedy is partition, not injunction.
- Reiterates that possession by one co-owner is deemed possession of all; injunction only appropriate if acts are adverse, hostile, or expel the co-owner from enjoyment of rights.
- Lawyers should assess acts alleged as the basis for injunction—mere physical changes without ouster or prejudice do not suffice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts, which established that the property was still joint, and both parties (co-owners) had raised constructions and cultivated their respective portions.
- Relied upon Full Bench in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, laying out detailed principles:
- Each co-owner has an interest in the whole; possession by one is, in law, possession by all; ouster requires exclusive, hostile possession with knowledge to the other.
- The right to use joint property in a manner not inconsistent with rights of co-owners.
- Cited Division Bench in Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh, holding that:
- Co-owner out of possession cannot seek injunction against a co-owner in possession unless there is ouster, prejudice, or detriment; mere construction/improvement is insufficient.
- Proper remedy in other situations is to seek partition.
- Concluded plaintiffs failed to prove acts by defendant amounting to ouster or detriment; both lower courts’ findings left no legal room for interference.
- No substantial question of law arose; thus, the regular second appeal was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Both courts erred in dismissing the suit.
- Property was joint; defendant had no right to raise construction or wire off any portion.
- Suit for permanent injunction should have been decreed.
Respondent
(As per written statement summarized by the Court)
- Property was orally partitioned; parties were in possession of respective shares.
- Plaintiffs raised construction on their own share; thus, cannot restrain defendant from construction or use on her share.
- Defendant competent to install wire on property in her possession.
Factual Background
The dispute centered around joint, unpartitioned agricultural property owned by the parties as co-sharers. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the property and installing wire. The defendant claimed oral partition and asserted that the plaintiffs themselves had constructed on their allotted share, and therefore could not prevent her from using the land in her possession. Both lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for permanent injunction.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment is based on general principles of co-ownership in civil law. The statutory specifics (e.g., Partition Act or CPC sections) are not expressly analyzed. Instead, legal principles relating to co-sharer rights, the presumption of joint possession, and remedies available for co-owners (e.g., partition vs. injunction) are drawn from judicial precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural measures are set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly applies and affirms prior Full Bench and Division Bench authority on the rights of co-owners and when injunctions may be granted in such cases.