1. Respondents had filed a suit seeking, a decree of declaration that Gift deed dated 04.02.2002 for land measuring 10 kanals 13 marlas comprised in Khasra no. 306, and 11 kanals comprised in Khasra no. 307, situated at village Kotla Tehsil Reasi, executed by Kabla Singh in favour of his son Karan Singh was null and void besides a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining Kabla Singh and others from raising construction on land comprised in Khasra nos. 305, 306 and 307 and from alienating it, by any mode whatsoever, pleading, inter alia, that the parties to the suit being co-sharers, Kabla Singh-petitioner no. 1 had no authority to gift away the land to his son when he was not the exclusive owner thereof. Kabla Singh had been alleged by the respondents to have sold more than 70 kanals of land out of land measuring 139 kanals 01 marla comprised in Khasra no. 305, i.e., much beyond his share in the Shamlat land comprised in Khasra no. 305.

2. Decree for permanent prohibitory injunction had been sought on the premise that the petitioners-defendants had threatened to sell the land and change the nature thereof by raising construction over it.

3. An application for issuance of interim injunction too had been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, seeking a restraint order against the petitioners-defendants not to raise any construction over, change the nature of, and alienate in any manner whatsoever, the suit land, during the pendency of the suit.

4. Plaintiffs had urged that in case the injunctive directions were not issued, irreparable loss which may not be compensated by costs would be caused to them.

5. Besides disputing the maintainability of, and the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit, on various grounds, the petitioners-defendants had submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents were not in possession of the suit land, and even if the plaintiffs case of being the co-sharers in the land had to be believed, a co-sharer, in possession of the property cannot be deprived of his right to use the land in his possession; the only course open to the other co-sharer(s) being -- to seek partition.

6. The trial court did not find prima facie case in favour of the respondents and, accordingly, dismissed their application seeking injunctive directions. It, however, directed the petitioners-defendants to furnish undertaking that they would not dispose of the land comprised in Khasra nos. 306 and 307 and in case some new construction was raised by them in the land during the pendency of the suit, it would be removed/dismantled in case the plaintiffs succeeded in the suit.

7. Upsetting the trial courts judgment and finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, the Appellate court has restrained the petitioners-defendants from alienating the suit land and raising construction thereon till final disposal of the suit.

8. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Appellate court, petitioners-defendants have approached this Court for setting aside the Appellate Courts order.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions in the light of the case law cited at the Bar.

10. While allowing plaintiffs application, and issuing injunctive directions against the petitioners-defendants, the Appellate Court had taken two factors into consideration, viz., (1) the pleadings of the parties and the documents on the records indicated that the parties were co-sharers in land comprised in Khasra nos. 306 and 307 and (2) that no co-sharer has any right to raise construction on the joint property, without the consent of the other co-sharer(s).

11. Insofar as the first factor which had weighed with the Court is concerned, there is no denying the fact that there are documents on records which do prima facie indicate the parties to be the co-sharers of the land in question.

12. Insofar as the second ground, that a co-sharer cannot build upon joint property without the consent of the other co-sharer, which had weighed with th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document