IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4116 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2011 Ajaib Singh … Appellant Versus Bhupinder Singh and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Jatinder J.C.Nagpal, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff had filed the civil suits against Nand Kaur and Surjeeto, who were recorded as co-sharers of Khewat No.167. The said suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the revenue record was corrected in the name of the plaintiff. Father of the defendants had filed a suit for declaration to claim ownership of the suit land. Suit filed by Ajmer Singh was partly decreed. Although the decrees in favour of the plaintiff were set aside but the suit of Ajmer Singh qua declaration of ownership and possession qua the suit land was dismissed. Defendants had no concern with the suit land. Defendants in their written statement averred that decrees dated 4.3.1991 and 14.1.1991 were result of fraud and misrepresentation and were not binding on the rights of Ajmer Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus- standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPP 6. Relief. RSA No.4116 of 2009 (O&M Vide judgment and decree dated 2.11.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Nabha, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff is a co-sharer in the suit land and as per the revenue record the suit land is described in joint possession of the owners. Since the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the suit land, the suit of the plaintiff was liable 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 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. 2 RSA No.4116 of 2009 (O&M (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 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.” Thus, it is a settled proposition of law that a co-sharer can not seek injunction against the other co-sharer with regard to the property which is in their joint possession. The only remedy available to the plaintiff was to file a suit for partition. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge 11.02.2011 sd 3