R.S.A.No.3143 of 2007 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.3143 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 13, 2009 Jasbir Singh and another ---Appellants versus Nirmal Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.D.S.Adlakha,Advocate, for the appellants *** SABINA J. Plaintiffs - Jasbir Singh and Ram Kumar had filed a suit for permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2007. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- R.S.A.No.3143 of 2007 (O&M) {2} “The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants inter alia on the allegations that they have purchased land measuring 14 kanals-5 marlas from Sanjay Kumar by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14.1.1999 and their vendor had delivered the possession of that land to them including land measuring 6 kanals-4 marlas out of Khasra No. 4//21 (6-9), 7//1/2(3-16), 4//20(1-9), 19/2 (3-6) and land measuring 1 kanal-8 marlas out of Khasra No. 4//3/1(1- 13). Their vendor was in possession of this land as as per “Khangri Taqseem”. Thu7s, they are bona fide purchasers are in settled possession of the suit land, fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint and their name has also been incorporated in mutation qua that sale and as such they are absolute owners in possession of the suit land. The defendants have no concern with the suit land but they being influential persons are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally and forcibly without any right. The plaintiffs requested them not to do so, but, they did not pay any heed to their request. Hence, this suit. 3. On notice, all the defendants appeared. However, only defendants No. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement, whereas, defence of the remaining defendants No. 4 to 6 was struck off vide order dated 19.5.2000. 4. Defendants No. 1 to 3 in their written statement have admitted the factum of purchase of land by the plaintiffs R.S.A.No.3143 of 2007 (O&M) {3} from one of the co-sharers, namely, Sanjay Kumar, however, sale of land out of specific portion was denied. It is pleaded that they ahd also purchased and as such they are co-sharers in the suit land, which has not been partitioned so far. Thus, in view of the settled law that the possession of all the co-sharers is deemed to be there on every inch of the joint holdings, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking injunction against co-sharers is not maintainable. The only remedy available to the plaintiffs is to seek a decree for partition of the joint holdings. Thus, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit which has been filed by him just to harass the answering respondents and deserves dismissal. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed ? OPP (2)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (3)Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD (4)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. It has been held by this Court in the case Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Deva Ram Nagina Ram and others AIR 1961 PB 528 as under:- “(1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also R.S.A.No.3143 of 2007 (O&M) {4} in 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, 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 to by the other co-owners, it is not open to any one to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition. (8) The remedy of a co-owner not in possession, or not in possession of a share of the joint property, is by way of a suit R.S.A.No.3143 of 2007 (O&M) {5} for partition or for actual joint possession, but not for ejectment. Same is the case where a co-owner sets up an exclusive title in himself. (9) Where a portion of the joint property is by common consent of the co-owners reserved for a particular common purpose, it cannot be diverted to an inconsistent user by a co-owner; if he does so, he is liable to be ejected and the particular parcel will be liable to be restored to its original condition. It is not necessary in such a case to show that special damage has been suffered. Case law reviewed.” Plaintiffs had sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land in dispute. However, as per the revenue record parties are described to be co- sharers in the land in dispute. The private partition alleged by the plaintiffs with regard to the suit land is admittedly not reflected in the revenue record. It is settled proposition of law that a private partition without registration is not admissible in the evidence. Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs because every co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of the joint property. Hence no injunction could be granted against a co-sharer. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 13, 2009 PARAMJIT