Injunction Suit Not Maintainable Against a Co-Owner Absent Exclusive Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“A Co-Owner Has a Right to Use Every Inch of Joint Property Unless Ouster is Proved”— Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second appeal , reiterating that a suit for permanent injunction by a co-sharer against another co-sharer is not maintainable unless exclusive possession or ouster is established. Justice Alka Sarin upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the plaintiff's plea for injunctive relief.

This judgment reaffirms the settled principle that joint ownership presumes joint possession, and only a proper partition suit can resolve disputes over use or occupation of common property.

The litigation began with a suit for permanent injunction filed by Smt. Savitri Devi (appellant) and Smt. Mitlesh Devi (respondent no.2) against Naresh Kumar (respondent no.1), alleging that although he had no concern with the suit land, he was attempting to take forcible possession, raise illegal construction, and alienate the land. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession over the land through a registered sale deed, and asserted that they had built a boundary wall at considerable expense.

Naresh Kumar, however, contested the suit, claiming that he was the rightful owner of 100 sq. yards of the land based on a sale deed dated 30.07.2012, which he secured through execution of a decree for specific performance. He challenged the competency of the plaintiffs’ vendors, and raised multiple objections on maintainability, locus standi, concealment of facts, and estoppel.

Both the Trial Court (24.05.2016) and the First Appellate Court (22.04.2019) dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. Only Savitri Devi (plaintiff no.2) filed a second appeal, which was eventually rejected by the High Court.

The key legal question was: Can one co-owner seek an injunction against another co-owner, absent proof of exclusive possession or ouster?

The High Court answered in the negative, citing authoritative precedents:

On Joint Possession of Co-Owners – Bhartu v. Ram Sarup [1981 PLJ 204]

“A co-owner has interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it.”

“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.”

“A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster.”

On Relief Available – Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh [2000 (3) RCR (Civil) 70]

“A co-owner not in possession is not entitled to injunction against another co-owner who is in exclusive possession unless the act amounts to ouster.”

“If the acts of the co-owner in possession are detrimental to the interest of other co-owners, an injunction may be granted—but not otherwise.”

“In all other cases, the remedy of the co-owner out of possession of the property is to seek partition, but not an injunction.”

The High Court noted that both lower courts had conclusively found the parties to be co-sharers. The plaintiff led no evidence to show that she was in exclusive possession of any particular portion, or that a partition had taken place.

Justice Alka Sarin emphasized: “In the absence of any evidence led by the plaintiff-appellant that she was in exclusive possession of the suit land and that there had been a partition, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the suit for injunction qua a co-sharer would not be maintainable.”

Finding no error in the reasoning of the Trial and Appellate Courts, and no substantial question of law, the High Court dismissed the second appeal:

“There is no scope for any interference by this Court... The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.”

Date of Decision: August 5, 2025