The central legal point established in the judgment is the rights of co-sharers in joint property, the requirement for partition to establish exclusive possession, and the interpretation of the HP Land Revenue Act in determining joint ownership and possession.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

Plaintiffs are in second appeal before this Court. They are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No.70-K/03 on 2.12.2003, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Kangra, District Kangra in Civil Suit No.144/99 and dismissed the suit.

2. The subject matter of dispute in the present lis is a parcel of land measuring 0-07-96 hectares comprised under Khata No.26, Khatauni No.34 and Khasra No.187, 190, to the extent of 15/24 shares, situate in Mohal Pehgan, Mauza Sahoura, Tehsil and District Kangra as per entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 Ex.P-1/D-1.

3. The common ancestor of the parties to the suit was Sunka. Satya Devi Proforma respondent No.2 herein (plaintiff No.1 in the trial Court) is widow of one Rasila son of said Shri Sunka whereas deceased plaintiffs Likhu Ram and Tulsi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of appellants No.1 to 4 and 6 (a) to 6(e) were also sons of said Shri Sunka. Similarly, deceased defendant Dhani Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1(a) to 1(f) was also son of said Shri Sunka. As per the entries in Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 Ex.P-1/D-1, the parties are joint owner-in-possession of the suit land to the extent of their respective shares as reflected in this document.

4. The suit land bearing Khasra No.190 is a big plot and is recorded as ‘Ger Mumkin Abadi’ in the Jamabandi Ex.P-1/D-1. The parties to the suit admittedly have their residential houses already constructed in existence over a portion thereof. Besides this, vacant land is also available on the spot adjoining to the houses of the parties to the suit when the plaintiffs claim the same to be in their joint possession with defendants, as per the version of the later, the same stands partitioned and the vacant land as per the possession of the parties to the suit fell in their respective shares during the partition. He, therefore, has claimed that whatever construction he intends to raise is over that portion of the suit land, which in the partition fell in his share. The plaintiffs, however, have come forward with the version that the suit land is still un-partitioned and as such in joint possession of the parties to the suit.

5. The defendant with a view to grab the same over and above his share started collecting construction material to start construction work over a portion thereof. They objected to such unlawful activities on his part and when he refused to desist from carrying out construction, they filed the suit and obtained ad interim injunction. He allegedly raised construction upto plinth level forcibly and in utter disregard to the ad interim injunction passed by learned trial Court.

6. It is with the above pleadings, the parties had undergone trial and learned Trial Court has framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit has been properly valued? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to sue? OPD

5. Whether the suit is barred on account of act, conduct and acquiescence on the part of

the plaintiffs? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

8. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and mis-joinder of cause of action? OPD

9. Relief.

7. One of the plaintiffs namely Shri Tulsi Ram himself has stepped in the witness-box as PW-1 and also placed reliance on the documentary evidence.

8. On the other hand, the defendant has himself stepped in the witness box as DW-2 and also examined Shri Kripal Singh, Superintendent, office of Tehsildar Shahpur, District Kangra as DW-1 to prove the partition proceedings and order of partition.

9. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced on both si