In a second appeal, the Court dismissed the application for permanent injunction. The Court held that a co-sharer is entitled to alienate their share from the common pool and that no injunction can be granted against a co-sharer interfering with this right.
Appellant's appeal dismissed; no injunction granted.
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.
RSA No.3951 of 2011 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3951 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 09, 2012
Sawinder Singh
.......Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh and others
.......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.
RSA No.3951 of 2011 (O&M)
2
permanent injunction was sought to be granted restraining them from alienating by way of sale, mortgage or gift by way of specific khasra number more than their share in the land.
“i) Whether the suit land is joint between the parties? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP”
and have returned a concurrent finding by placing reliance on the
RSA No.3951 of 2011 (O&M)
3
jamabandi that the suit land is still joint between the parties. A co-sharer would certainly be entitled to alienate to the extent of his share from the common pool and even if specific khasra numbers are transferred, it would be taken as a sale of share subject to adjustment at the time of final partition. The defendants took up a specific plea that they would not make alienation in excess of their share in the suit land. On the other hand, the plaintiff who had approached the Court for the discretionary and equitable relief of injunction, has been noticed to have sold land out of the suit land to Gurnam Singh son of Hazara Singh to the extent of 5 kanals 2 marlas out of khasra No. 60/8/1 and mutation No.1451 in respect thereof has been duly sanctioned. Still further, the plaintiff has also mortgaged 8 K of land pertaining to the suit land out of khasra No.16/6 for Rs.80,000/- in favour of Lopoke Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Lopoke and mutation No.259 dated 10.3.2003 already stands sanctioned on the basis thereof. Accordingly, the plaintiff has rightfully been held to be not entitled to the discretionary and equitable relief of injunction. That apart, it is also a settled principle of law that no injunction can be granted against a co-sharer. The findings of the Courts below do not warrant any interference.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) FEBRUARY 09, 2012 JUDGE SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to an injunction restraining co-sharers from alienating their share in joint land.
Whether a co-sharer can be restrained by injunction from selling their share of jointly held property.
Sawinder Singh
Baldev Singh and others
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
