The main legal point established in the judgment is the rights of co-sharers in possession of joint property and the authority to raise construction on the land, as well as the implications of such actions on the value of the remaining property.

1. Appellants have filed the instant Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal seeking setting aside of order dated 30.08.2014 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby the Court below while allowing the application filed by Haji Mohd. Abdullah-respondent No. 22 herein, observed that Defendant/respondent No. 1-Mohd. Umar Nizami or his attorney Haji Mohd. Abdullah may raise construction over the land in dispute at their own risk and cost, but no claim for such construction shall be made by them in the event the same falls within the share of plaintiffs, appellants herein.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellants herein have filed a suit for declaration, partition, separate possession, injunction and settlement of accounts etc. before the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu with respect to suit land measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas covered by Survey No. old/127-Min and new 729, and the same is pending disposal. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed and the learned Judge vide order dated 08.08.2006 directed the defendants 1 to 17 therein to maintain status-quo. The said order was extended from time to time and vide order dated 23.08.2012 the same was made absolute till the disposal of the suit. Against the said order, respondents 1 & 22 herein filed CIMA No. 412/2012 before this Court contending therein that out of the suit property, Mohd. Umar Nizami-respondent No. 1 herein executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Haji Mohd. Abdullah-respondent No. 22 herein on 10.12.2010 with respect to 12 marlas of land thereby authorizing him to raise any type of construction over it. It was contended that on the strength of said Power of Attorney, Haji Mohd. Abdullah raised the construction of a Hotel building to the level of first floor. Meanwhile, an application came to be filed by Abdul Qayoom Nizami and another, appellants herein, seeking the restrain order. This Court vide order dated 06.02.2014 while setting aside the order dated 23.08.2012 directed the trial Court to decide the injunction application and other ancillary applications afresh and till then status-quo was directed to be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the trial Court while deciding the applications under reference, vide order dated 30.08.2014 allowed the application filed by Haji Mohd. Abdullah-respondent No. 22 herein with the observation that defendant No. 1-Mohd. Umar Nizami or his attorney Haji Mohd. Abdullah may raise construction over the land in dispute at their own risk and cost, but no claim for such construction shall be made by them in the event the same falls within the share of plaintiffs, appellants herein. It is this order which is challenged by the plaintiffs-appellants herein.

4. Mr. Bhat, learned counsel for appellants, vehemently argued that it is not being claimed by respondent No. 22 that he is raising the construction of hotel for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 as an Attorney Holder; rather he claims to be the bonafide purchaser of the land-in-question and' is constructing the hotel over it being its owner. He further argued that the trial Court has wrongly concluded that a co-sharer in possession has a right to raise construction over the property-in-question, whereas every co-sharer has a right to use the property commonly and the same cannot be put to such use by one of the co-sharers that others are deprived of its common use. Further, the construction of the hotel is sought to be made by a stranger, thus common use of the property has absolutely been denied to other co-sharers. Mr. Bhat while relying on a case, titled as, Abhey Singh v. Gian Singh, 1971 JKLR 326, argued that respondent No. 22 has no right on his own to raise constructions over the suit property, as he was guilty of suppressing the material facts before the trial Court.

5. On the other hand, Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 pleaded that in the year 1983 respondent No. 1 acquired