The judgment reiterates that absent ouster, prejudice, or detriment to a co-owner’s interest, a co-owner not in exclusive possession cannot obtain an injunction merely to prevent construction or alteration by another co-owner; the proper remedy is partition. This position upholds Full Bench and Division Bench precedents of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and is binding on all subordinate courts in the State.
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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for all subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil – Property Law (Co-ownership, Injunction) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a co-owner not in exclusive possession can restrain another co-owner in possession from making constructions or alterations on joint, undivided property absent ouster, prejudice, or detriment? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where property remains joint and co-owners are in separate possession or occupation by arrangement, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain constructions or changes made by one co-owner unless acts amount to ouster, are adverse, prejudicial, or detrimental to the interest of the other co-owner. The court reaffirmed the rule that, save in cases of ouster or detriment, a co-owner out of possession must seek partition for redress rather than an injunction. Both lower courts were found to have correctly applied this principle in dismissing the suit. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Possession by one co-owner is, in law, possession by all; exclusive and hostile possession (ouster) is necessary to rebut the presumption. Mere construction or occupation by a co-owner is not, in itself, ouster. Injunction is only available if co-owner’s actions cause prejudice, are adverse, or diminish value; otherwise, remedy is partition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The parties, as joint owners, were each in possession and cultivation of their share of undivided property. Plaintiffs sought injunction to restrain defendant from making construction and installing wire, alleging absence of partition. Defendant countered with a claim of oral partition and claimed right to make constructions on her portion. Both courts dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment restates that injunctions between co-owners are not to be issued unless there is clear evidence of ouster, prejudice, or acts detrimental to the interest of the other co-owner.
- Confirms that the proper remedy for a co-owner out of possession is to seek partition rather than an injunction against another co-owner in possession.
- Reinforces the presumption that one co-owner’s possession is deemed to be on behalf of all, barring proof of exclusive and hostile possession (ouster).
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined and affirmed the findings of both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that the property remained joint and that both parties were in possession of portions of the undivided property.
- It relied on the Full Bench judgment in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup [1981 PLJ 204], which lays down that possession by one co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all and ouster requires exclusive and hostile possession.
- The Division Bench judgment in Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh [2000(3) RCR (Civil) 70] was also relied upon to clarify that mere construction or occupation by a co-owner does not constitute ouster or give rise to an injunction in the absence of prejudice or acts detrimental to the co-owner’s interest.
- The Court held that since no evidence was produced of ouster or prejudice and both parties were in possession, no injunction could be granted; the right course of action for any aggrieved co-owner is to pursue partition proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Plaintiff-Appellants)
- Argued that the property was joint and the defendant-respondent had no right to raise construction or put a wire around a valuable portion of the suit property.
- Claimed entitlement to a decree for permanent injunction.
Respondent (Defendant-Respondent)
- Pleaded an oral partition had occurred and that possession had been exchanged; construction raised by the plaintiffs on their own share.
- Asserted that the plaintiffs could not restrain her from raising construction or installing a wire over the suit property in her possession.
Factual Background
The parties are joint owners of the undivided suit property, each possessing and cultivating their respective shares. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondent from raising construction and installing wire on a portion of the property, arguing that the land was undivided. The defendant denied the claim, asserting oral partition and independent rights to make changes on her portion. Both lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for injunction.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses property law principles relating to co-ownership in the context of suits for injunction.
- It interprets that no injunction can be granted absent ouster, prejudice, or detriment, as possession by one co-owner is legally presumed to be for all; the remedy lies in partition, not injunction.
- No specific statutory provisions beyond general property and civil procedure law are identified in the analysis.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents, innovations, or directions are identified in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law as set in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup and Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh has been affirmed and applied.