The principle of joint tenancy and co-ownership does not entitle a co-owner to claim a decree for injunction against other co-owners from interfering with exclusive possession, but exceptions exist when evidence shows exclusive physical possession by a co-owner.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Shimla H.P., whereby he affirmed the rendition of the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Theog, Himachal Pradesh. The defendants standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below, hence through the instant appeal constituted before this Court, concert to beget reversal of the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.

2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision in the instant appeal are that the plaintiff seeks the permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the best part of the suit land comprised in Khata No 18, Khatauni No. 30, Kitas 7, measuring 95 bighas and 6 biswas, situated in chak Kachi, pergana Charati, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the one of the co-owners of the suit land and other co-sharers Budhi Ram and Marchi had sold their shares to the defendants and defendants have become the co-sharers with the plaintiff. The plaintiff prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering with the land in his possession. Hence, the present suit.

3. The suit was contested by defendants. They filed written statement admitting that the plaintiff is the co- sharer. It was asserted that defendant No.2 has purchased the share of Bhudi Ram and Marchi. The possession was also delivered to the defendants on the spot and defendants developed the land. The plaintiff has not developed any land, hence, they prayed that this suit be dismissed.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:-

1. Whether the defendants are in separate possession of a portion of the suit land, as alleged? OPD.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Relief.

5. On appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff besides the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court.

6. Now the defendants/appellants herein have instituted before this Court the instant Regular Second Appeal wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 21.3.2006, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:-

“1. Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court erred in law in granting the relief of injunction against the appellants, who are admittedly co-sharers?”

Substantial question of law.

7. Though in Ext.P-1, exhibit whereof comprises the Jamabandi with respect to the suit property, a communication occurs that the parties at contest hold the suit property as co-owners. Consequently, when the aforesaid reflections occurring in Ext.P-1 enjoy a presumption of truth besides when no cogent evidence is adduced for displacing the presumption of truth enjoyed by the apposite reflections borne in Ext.P-1,in sequel, the reflections occurring in Ext.P-1 qua the parties at contest holding co-ownership with respect to the suit property, hence acquire conclusivity. However, the effect of conclusivity being imputed to the aforesaid fact, would not per se entitle the defendants appellants, to beget reversal of the concurrent decrees recorded upon them whereby they stand restrained from interfering with the exclusive physical possession of the plaintiff, upon the suit land borne in the suit Khasra numbers. Moreover, even though the principle of joint tenancy or the principle of co-ownership is imbued with the salient tenet qua all the recorded co-owners holding unity of title besides community of possession with respect to every inch of the undivided suit property also when