Permanent injunction cannot be granted in favour of a co-sharer against other co-sharers in joint property unless exclusive possession over a defined portion is proved. The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterates the established principle and dismisses an appeal seeking injunction based solely on co-ownership. This judgment stands as binding authority for subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1715/2022 of DHANPATI Vs RAJVIR SINGH AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC010252322022 |
| Date of Registration | 17-08-2022 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms concurrent findings and established precedent regarding injunctions between co-sharers |
| Type of Law | Civil Law – Property (Injunction, Co-Sharers’ Rights) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a co-sharer/plaintiff can obtain permanent injunction against other co-sharers without proving exclusive possession over a specific portion of undivided joint property. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court holds that permanent injunction cannot be granted to a co-sharer against other co-sharers in respect of joint, unpartitioned property unless the plaintiff can establish exclusive possession over a defined portion. In this case, the plaintiff failed to produce documentary evidence, such as Khasra Girdawari or valid sale deed specifying the khasra number, to demonstrate such exclusive possession. The oral evidence and documents did not satisfy the burden of proof. Consequently, as the property was admittedly joint and unpartitioned, and exclusive possession was not proved, no injunction could be granted. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Findings of the Additional District Judge, Sangrur as contained in the judgment dated 09.11.2021 confirmed by the Trial Court (Judgment dated 13.10.2018). |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that a suit for permanent injunction requires proof of exclusive possession when property is joint; reference to revenue records and authenticity/specificity of title documents (Khasra Girdawari, sale deed). |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiff claimed exclusive possession over 31K 3M of suit land based on 2011-12 Jamabandi; defendants allegedly attempted forcible dispossession. Both Trial and Appellate Courts dismissed her suit for permanent injunction, finding lack of proof of exclusive possession and noting property was joint and unpartitioned. Plaintiff relied on oral testimonies and a contested sale deed, which did not mention specific khasra numbers and exhibited procedural anomalies. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and may be cited in similar factual situations elsewhere in India |
| Follows | Principles regarding injunction suits among co-sharers as reaffirmed by the lower appellate and trial court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere co-ownership does not entitle a party to permanent injunction against other co-sharers in absence of clear and exclusive possession over a specified portion.
- Highlights the evidentiary burden: Plaintiff must produce credible documentary evidence (e.g., Khasra Girdawari, specific sale deed mentioning defined land parcels) to establish exclusive possession.
- Sale deeds without identification of specific khasra numbers and with procedural anomalies will be insufficient to prove exclusive possession.
- Oral evidence lacking corroboration by clear revenue records is inadequate for securing an injunction in joint property disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the plaintiff’s claim of exclusive possession, scrutinising both oral and documentary evidence.
- It found that the plaintiff did not produce any Khasra Girdawari in her name to establish possession.
- The sale deed relied upon did not mention specific khasra numbers and had procedural discrepancies (date of writing precedes purchase of stamp paper), which the plaintiff could not explain.
- Oral testimony (including PW3 Namberdar) did not demonstrate that the plaintiff’s vendors were in exclusive possession over any defined portion of the suit land.
- The property continued to be joint and unpartitioned; all parties were co-sharers.
- The lower appellate court’s findings that exclusive possession is mandatory for an injunction in such cases were accepted and endorsed.
- Suit was rightfully dismissed as injunction cannot lie when exclusive possession is not proved and property remains unpartitioned.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant / Plaintiff):
- The respondent-defendants are co-sharers but there is no finding of their exclusive possession over any specific portion.
- Injunction should be granted if the plaintiff is in specific possession, which the plaintiff claims to have established through oral and documentary evidence.
- Defendants have no authority to alter the nature of the suit property.
- Courts below misread the appellant’s evidence.
Respondent:
- Relied on the findings that the plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession; property is undivided and joint.
- Supported the concurrent judgments and decrees dismissing the suit.
Factual Background
The dispute concerns 31K 3M of agricultural land, which the plaintiff claimed to possess exclusively, based on the 2011-12 Jamabandi record. Alleging attempts by the defendants (co-sharers) to forcibly dispossess her, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed her suit on the basis that she failed to prove exclusive possession and the property was joint and unpartitioned. On appeal, the first appellate court affirmed these findings. The plaintiff then filed this second appeal, which has now been dismissed.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered the principles governing permanent injunctions in property disputes among co-sharers.
- It emphasized that in cases of joint property, the plaintiff seeking injunction must establish exclusive possession over a clearly defined portion.
- Importance of documentary evidence, such as Khasra Girdawari and sale deed specifying Khasra numbers, was underscored as essential for establishing exclusive possession.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established principles regarding injunctions between co-sharers in joint property; no new law or departure from precedent.