-
by sayum
20 February 2026 10:40 AM
“Whether a Judgment Is the Result of Fraud Is a Matter of Evidence to Be Determined at Trial, Not Interlocutory Stage” — Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling involving ancestral land and contested inheritance, set aside an appellate order granting interim injunction and reaffirmed the principle that no injunction lies against a co-sharer.
In Rakma v. Banta (deceased) through LRs, Justice Mandeep Pannu allowed the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s refusal to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit land. The Court noted with clarity:
“The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the defendant as he has stepped into the shoes of the deceased co-sharer… no injunction can be granted against a co-sharer.”
The case involved agricultural land originally held by Molu, which devolved upon his son Chhajju. The plaintiff Banta, the real brother of Chhajju, and the defendant Rakma, a half-brother from a different father but the same mother, were co-sharers in the property.
In 2009, Chhajju executed a decree in favour of Rakma. However, Banta filed a suit challenging that decree on the ground of fraud, and sought a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, praying that Rakma be restrained from alienating the land or interfering with possession.
The trial court dismissed the injunction plea on 10.04.2012, finding that Chhajju, having died issueless, was the absolute owner of his share and had executed a registered Will in favour of Rakma. The court also noted that fraud was not specifically pleaded by Banta at that stage.
However, the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, on 16.01.2014, reversed the trial court’s decision and granted the injunction. It was against this appellate order that Rakma approached the High Court in revision.
Justice Pannu reiterated a foundational rule in property law, stating:
“As per settled law, no injunction can be granted against a co-sharer.”
The Court firmly held that mere allegations of fraud cannot tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff at the interim stage. The Court remarked:
“Whether or not the judgment of said suit is the result of fraud is a matter of evidence to be determined in the main suit and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the interlocutory stage.”
Further, it was observed that the revenue record (Jamabandi 2007–08) reflected Chhajju as owner in possession of one-fourth share as co-sharer, and Rakma had rightfully stepped into his shoes through a registered Will dated 23.02.2001.
The High Court noted that the lower appellate court had ignored these crucial facts, particularly the co-sharership status and existence of a Will, and had erroneously granted the injunction without satisfying the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
The High Court held that the appellate court's approach was legally unsustainable. The order dated 16.01.2014 granting interim injunction was quashed, and the trial court’s order dated 10.04.2012, which had denied interim relief, was restored.
Justice Pannu concluded the judgment by stating:
“In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is patently unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside… Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed.”
The ruling reinforces the principle that injunctions are not to be granted lightly in cases involving co-sharers unless compelling legal grounds are demonstrated. The Court drew a clear line between allegations and proof, and emphasized that claims of fraud must be tested during trial, not presumed in pre-trial proceedings.
This decision offers critical guidance for lower courts handling property disputes rooted in family arrangements, Wills, and partition suits, especially where one party is in lawful possession.
Date of Decision: August 22, 2025
