Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Madho Kailash – Appellant
Versus
Prem Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is land measuring 8-1-0 bigha comprised in Khasra No.6144 contained in Khatauni No.258 of Khata No.204 as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 of Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land).
2. The appellant before this Court was the plaintiff before the trial Court. The appellant in the plaint filed before the trial Court claimed joint ownership and possession over the suit land with the defendant along with other co-sharers. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 15.06.2010, when, as per the appellant, the respondent/ defendant with an intention to grab valuable, specific portion of the suit land exceeding his share started digging the suit land for the purpose of raising construction thereupon without getting the suit land partitioned.
3. The respondent/defendant, in his written statement, on merits stated that he had purchased his share measuring 0-8-0 bigha vide sale deed dated 30.01.2006 from one Tehal Singh, son of Shri Bhagh Chand and as per respondent/defendant, a specific portion of the suit l
Co-sharers can construct on their respective shares of joint land without infringing on others' rights; exclusive possession does not confer separate ownership until legally partitioned.
Co-owners cannot raise construction on joint property without consent from other co-owners, and must substantiate claims of irreparable loss to obtain an injunction.
Co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in common property absolutely and simply because he is a co-owner unless any act of person in possessi....
Civil Law - Grant of Temporary Injunction - Rights and Liabilities of Co-owners - A co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in common property....
The onus of proving exclusive possession after partition lies with the plaintiff, and findings must be based on evidence rather than conjectures and surmises.
The plaintiff has to establish substantial loss or injury being caused by the construction being undertaken/raised by co-sharer/co-owner, to tilt the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
