One Who Denies Joint Ownership Cannot Claim Co-Sharership to Resist Injunction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Where a defendant asserts exclusive possession and denies joint status, the plea of co-sharership cannot later be invoked to defeat an injunction" – On October 13, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal challenging concurrent injunction decrees protecting the plaintiff’s possession over 32 marlas of abadi land, holding that the defendant’s inconsistent plea and failure to substantiate co-sharership or possession warranted no interference. Justice Deepak Gupta held that no substantial question of law arose from the findings below and the appeal was devoid of merit.

"One Co-Sharer Cannot Be Injuncted" Rule Inapplicable Where Defendant Claims Exclusive Possession in Defined Portions

The suit originated when the plaintiff, Kulwant Singh, sought a permanent injunction against Mohinder Singh, restraining him from interfering in his possession of 32 marlas of residential land demarcated as plot “ABCD” in the site plan.

The defendant denied the plaintiff’s ownership and possession, asserting instead that he owned and occupied 7 marlas, and that his sister Naranjan Kaur owned the remaining 25 marlas. Notably, he did not plead joint ownership but set up a case of exclusive possession in specific portions, thereby negating any claim of co-sharership in the entirety of the suit land.

While arguing the appeal, counsel for the appellant attempted to invoke the principle laid down in Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528, that a co-sharer cannot be injuncted from using joint land.

However, the High Court categorically rejected this line of argument, holding:

“The legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot seek injunction against another… is undisputed. However, the said principle is inapplicable… The defendant never pleaded that the property was joint. On the contrary, he claimed ownership and possession of only 7 marlas, while attributing ownership and possession of the remaining 25 marlas to his sister…”

The Court emphasized that pleadings bind the parties, and an inconsistent or contradictory legal position cannot be entertained at the appellate stage, particularly in a second appeal where the scope is confined to substantial questions of law.

Defendant's Non-Appearance and Weak Evidence Invited Adverse Inference; Plaintiff’s Possession Established

Both the Trial Court (dated 09.12.1994) and the First Appellate Court (dated 09.10.2000) had decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour, holding that:

• The plaintiff was in settled possession of the land in dispute.

• The defendant failed to establish either possession or ownership.

• The issue of ownership was not germane to an injunction suit where possession is established.

Critically, the defendant did not enter the witness box, and instead produced his son, Bhajan Singh (DW2), who admitted he had no personal knowledge of the family partition or the exact location of the alleged 7 marlas. The testimony of defence witnesses was found to be inconsistent, vague, and lacking credibility, particularly with respect to the alleged demarcation of land.

Justice Gupta relied on settled precedent, observing:

“The adverse inference rightly drawn against the defendant for his non-appearance in the witness box further weakens his case, as laid down in Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal, (2000-2) PLR 132, and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh, (1998-2) PLR 485.”

Furthermore, the Court noted that the family partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses, and the defendant's sister, Naranjan Kaur, who was claimed to be the owner of 25 marlas, had been residing in a different village since 1947, thereby casting doubt on any claim of possession.

No Substantial Question of Law; Second Appeal Dismissed as Frivolous

The High Court reaffirmed the limited scope of second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reiterating that:

“The concurrent findings are based on correct appreciation of pleadings and evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference.”

Thus, finding no substantial question of law, the appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent decrees of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff were upheld.

This judgment reiterates that co-sharership must be specifically pleaded and consistently maintained. Where a party denies joint status and claims exclusive rights, they cannot later rely on co-sharership to resist an injunction. Additionally, non-appearance in the witness box and failure to substantiate factual assertions can justifiably lead to adverse inference, defeating the defence case.

The decision reinforces the principle that second appeals are not a forum for reappreciating facts, and that inconsistent pleadings and unsubstantiated defences will not attract the Court’s indulgence.

Date of Decision: October 13, 2025