Co-sharer Must Prove Exclusive Possession For Interim Injunction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Interfere Under Article 227

“Mere Cultivation Is Not Exclusive Possession”: Punjab and Haryana High Court firmly upheld the settled principle of law that a co-sharer in joint land is not entitled to interim injunction unless exclusive possession is established. Justice Alka Sarin dismissed the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, affirming concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court which had declined interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Reiterating the established position, the Court observed:

“Interim injunction cannot be granted to a co-sharer in respect of joint property unless such co-sharer is able to establish exclusive possession over the suit property.” (Para 5)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, dismissed the challenge against orders of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which refused interim injunction in favour of a co-sharer who claimed possession of agricultural land merely on the basis of cultivating crops. The judgment reinforces the strict legal standard requiring a co-sharer to prove exclusive possession while seeking injunctive relief against other co-sharers.

The petitioner Sukhdev Singh @ Sukhwinder Singh filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from raising construction on agricultural land situated in village Chohla Sahib, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. Alongside, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was moved seeking temporary injunction to maintain status quo.

Both the Trial Court (order dated 05.10.2023) and the First Appellate Court (order dated 16.09.2024) dismissed the interim injunction application, noting that the petitioner was merely a co-sharer without any proof of exclusive possession. Aggrieved, the petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.

The primary question before the High Court was whether a co-sharer could be granted interim injunction merely by claiming cultivation rights without establishing exclusive possession, particularly when other co-sharers assert physical possession supported by documentary evidence.

Petitioner Failed to Show Exclusive Possession Over Joint Property

Justice Alka Sarin noted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had properly assessed the records, especially the Jamabandi (record-of-rights) which reflected that the petitioner was one of the co-sharers and did not hold exclusive possession of the suit land. The Court observed:

“The Jamabandi for the year 2015-16 revealed that the plaintiff-petitioner is only one of the co-sharers and was not shown as in exclusive possession of the suit property.” (Para 5)

Opposing Party Produced Cogent Evidence of Possession

Significantly, one of the defendants, Gurlal Singh (respondent No.4), produced electricity bills, water bills, and sewerage bills to demonstrate his possession and construction on the land. This documentary evidence weighed heavily with the Court in concluding that:

“In the absence of the plaintiff-petitioner being able to show that he was in exclusive possession of the suit property, both the Courts have rightly declined to grant interim injunction.” (Para 5)

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea that sowing of crops alone conferred possession rights capable of securing an injunction.

Well-Settled Law Regarding Co-sharer’s Possession Reiterated

The Court emphasized the well-accepted principle: “It is a settled position of law that possession of a co-sharer is possession on behalf of all co-sharers. No injunction can be granted in favour of a co-sharer without clear and convincing proof of exclusive possession.” (Para 5)

High Court’s Limited Interference under Article 227

Dismissing the petition, Justice Alka Sarin clarified the limits of revisional powers:

“Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined to correcting jurisdictional errors or perverse findings. Both Courts below have passed reasoned orders based on material evidence and legal principles.” (Para 6)

The Court concluded there was no error, much less a jurisdictional error, warranting interference.

In refusing to exercise its discretionary supervisory powers, the High Court firmly upheld the concurrent findings against the petitioner. The judgment serves as a cautionary reminder that interim injunctions in co-sharership cases cannot be granted casually or merely on the basis of cultivation, especially when exclusive possession is neither pleaded nor proved.

Justice Alka Sarin summed up: “No fault can be found with the orders passed by the Courts below. The petitioner’s claim is devoid of merit.” (Para 6)

The revision petition was dismissed with a further clarification that the observations were limited to the interim stage and would not affect the final adjudication of the main suit.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2025