Dismissed

Ramesh Khatri v. Darshan

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2025CR/7293/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against affirmation of dismissal of a co-sharer's temporary injunction application over joint agricultural land. The court held that a fractional share does not establish exclusive possession absent partition, electricity bills, photographs and jamabandi did not link the petitioner to any defined portion, and Article 227 cannot reappraise evidence. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramesh Khatri Vs Darshan — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

108 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR No.7293 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 14, 2025

¶3

Ramesh Khatri . . . . Pe22oner

¶4

¶5

Darshan . . . . Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present:- Pe��oner – Ramesh Khatri in person.

¶8

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶9

CM-22895-CII-2025

¶10

This is an applica�on under Sec�on 151 CPC to place on record the copies of the jamabandi for the year 2021-22, and Aks Shajra as Annexures A-1 and A-2.

¶11

Allowed.

¶12

Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record.

¶13

CR No.7293 of 2025

¶14

The pe��oner is the plain�ff in Civil Suit No. CS-1307-2023 �tled “Ramesh Khatri v. Darshan” , pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonipat. Through the present pe��on filed under Ar�cle 227 of the Cons�tu�on of India, he has assailed the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Addi�onal District Judge, Sonipat, whereby the order of the trial Court dated 09.11.2023 dismissing his applica�on under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been affirmed.

¶15

The pe��oner claims to be owner of 411/6760 share in land measuring 3 kanals 18 marlas falling in Khewat No.755//728, Khata No.875, Rect. No.60, Khasra No.10/1/1 situated in village Garhi Brahmanan, District Sonipat. His case before the Courts below was that although the land is joint

¶16

Sarita Rani 2025.11.17 15:40 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶17

CR No.7293 of 2025 (O&M)

¶18

2025:PHHC: 158290

¶19

and un-par��oned, he has been in possession of a defined por�on as per his share, has constructed a boundary wall over the said por�on since 2007, and has been enjoying separate electricity and water connec�ons. According to him, the defendant and other co-sharers were a>emp�ng to interfere in his possession, on account of which he had filed the suit for permanent injunc�on and sought temporary injunc�ve relief to restrain the defendants from encroaching or aliena�ng any part of the land.

¶20

Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, however, found that though the pe��oner is a co-sharer in the joint khata, he had failed to substan�ate his alleged exclusive possession of any specific por�on of the suit land. It was no�ced that despite asser�ng that he had separate water and electricity connec�ons, he had not produced any electricity or water bill to establish that the connec�on pertained to any specific por�on of Khasra No.10/1/1. No photographs of the alleged boundary wall raised in 2007 were produced before the trial Court. For these reasons, the applica�on for injunc�on was dismissed in absence of prima facie case.

¶21

The pe��oner, appearing in person before this Court, has again relied on the jamabandi, electricity bills and certain photographs.

¶22

Though, no photographs of the alleged boundary wall raised in 2007 were produced before the trial Court, but even the photographs and electricity bills sought to be relied upon in this revision did not link the construc�on or the electricity connec�on to the khasra number in dispute. Jamabandi (Annexure A-1) for the year 2021-22 only discloses the share of the pe��oner as a co-sharer and reflects that all the co-sharers, including the pe��oner, are shown in joint possession of the en�re khasra number, with no indica�on of exclusive possession of any defined por�on by any party.

¶23

Thus, the frac�onal share of plain�ff in joint khata does not in itself establish his exclusive possession over any demarcated por�on. The electricity bills do not carry any correla�on to the land in ques�on and cannot indicate that the connec�on has been installed in any part of Khasra No.10/1/1. The photographs, similarly, cannot establish that the construc�on

¶24

Sarita Rani 2025.11.17 15:40 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

CR No.7293 of 2025 (O&M)

¶27

2025:PHHC: 158290

¶28

shown therein relates to the suit khasra. In fact, the pe��oner himself admits that no par��on proceedings have taken place.

¶29

It is well se>led that in the absence of par��on, every co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of the joint land. A co-sharer cannot seek injunc�on against another co-sharer unless he demonstrates exclusive and se>led possession of a defined por�on to the exclusion of others. The Supreme Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 P&H 528 , and later in Gurbachan Singh v. Raghubir Singh , AIR 2010 P&H 77, has reiterated that injunc�on between co-sharers is impermissible unless exclusive possession is clearly proved. This Court too has consistently held, including in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup , 1981 PLJ 204 , that mere asser�on without documentary proof does not en�tle one co-sharer to injunct another from exercising similar rights over joint property.

¶30

In the present case, the pe��oner has failed to show even prima facie that he is in exclusive possession of any defined por�on. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on a correct apprecia�on of the record and disclose no perversity, illegality or jurisdic�onal error. The supervisory jurisdic�on under Ar�cle 227 is limited and is not intended to be invoked to reappraise evidence or subs�tute factual findings, when the Courts below have adopted a reasonable and lawful view of the ma>er.

¶31

In the absence of any material irregularity in the impugned orders, there is no ground to interfere. Finding no merit in the pe��on, the same is dismissed.

¶32

November 14, 2025 Sarita

¶33

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶35

Sarita Rani 2025.11.17 15:40 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Ramesh Khatri v. Darshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramesh Khatri v. Darshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljinder Pal Singh and Anr. Vs Vikram Singh through His Lr

Mohan Lal Vs Vinod Kumar

Gina Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Ajit Singh Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Khalil and Others Vs Khurshid Ahmed and Others

Charan Singh (Since Deceased) through Hus Lrs Rajinder Kaur and Others Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others