In this regular second appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. The court held that a co-owner in joint possession cannot seek injunction unless in exclusive possession, relying on Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup.
Appeal dismissed; original judgments and decrees of Courts below upheld.
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.3711 of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3711 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2015
Daljit Singh and others
... Appellants
Vs.
Nirmal Dass and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the appellants.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
C.M.No.9885-C-2012
The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Annexure A-1 is taken on record.
RSA No.3711 of 2012 (O&M)
At the instance of plaintiffs-appellants, this regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents or their representatives in any capacity from changing the nature of the property and from alienating, mortgaging, exchanging, leasing, creating any charge or disposing of any specific part of the property has been dismissed.
Both the Courts below held that plaintiffs-appellants were not found to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. In view
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.3711 of 2012 (O&M)
2
of the law laid down by the Division Bench as well as Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup 1981 PLJ 204 , co-owner who is found in joint possession cannot seek injunction, unless he is found in exclusive possession, the remedy, if any, lies elsewhere i.e. to seek partition of the joint property.
Both the Courts below have rendered finding of fact and law. There is no illegality much less perversity in the finding recorded by the Courts below.
No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
January 13, 2015 savita
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a co-owner in joint possession can seek an injunction restraining other co-owners from disposing of joint property without being in exclusive possession.
Whether the finding of Courts below that appellants were not in exclusive possession was erroneous or perverse.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhartu vs. Ram SarupRelied on¶21
Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup 1981 PLJ 204
Daljit Singh and others
Nirmal Dass and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
