The petitioner sought an injunction against a co-sharer under Article 227 of the Constitution. The single-judge bench held that since the petitioner failed to plead exclusive possession, only claiming joint possession, no ground existed to interfere with the lower courts' decision to deny the injunction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 309 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: July 17, 2012
Mangat Mohan alias Manga
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Renu and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N. Jindal, J
The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 5.9.2011 and 23.11.2011 passed by the courts below.
The petitioner has no where pleaded that he is in exclusive possession of a portion of the house, however, he is claiming joint possession and seeking injunction against the co-sharer. Both the courts below have, thus, rightly declined to grant injunction in his favour.
No grounds to interfere.
Dismissed.
July 17, 2012 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether injunction can be granted against a co-sharer by a possessor claiming only joint possession without pleading exclusive possession.
Whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India warrants interference with the lower courts' order declining injunction.
Mangat Mohan alias Manga
Renu and others
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
