C.R. No. 626 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 626 of 2007 Date of Decision : 19.8.2009 Amar Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus Hari Ram & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : None. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22.1.2007, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra, dismissing an application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was reversed. The respondent / plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming therein, that the plaintiffs along with their brother Narata Ram and defendants No. 1, 2 and 6 to 9 were co-sharers in the land measuring 6K- 13M, and that the partition of the land had not taken place and that, the defendant / petitioners started raising construction on the precious portion of the suit land, situated on the front, without getting the joint holding C.R. No. 626 of 2007 2 partitioned. The suit was contested, wherein stand taken by the petitioners was, that they were raising construction on the portion of the suit land, falling to their share in the partition. It was further pleaded, that pucca construction was raised over the suit land falling to the share of each co- owner, without any interruption since the year 1970. It was also alleged, that Amar Singh petitioner along with his sons also raised construction of a building upto roof level and building material was lying at the spot. The learned trial Court dismissed the application. The learned lower appellate Court held, that a co-owner in exclusive possession of the land can raise construction only by getting the suit land partitioned or with the consent of the other co-sharers, otherwise he is not entitled to raise any such construction. The learned lower appellate Court further held, that the stand of the petitioners, that they were in exclusive possession was not proved. The order passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and application moved by the respondent / plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed. The order passed by the learned appellate Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bachan Singh Vs. Swaran Singh 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 70, holding therein that a co-owner has no right to seek injunction against the other co-owner in raising construction over the land in his exclusive possession. The revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the learned C.R. No. 626 of 2007 3 appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored but with no order as to costs. 19.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE