A co-sharer in exclusive possession of a part of joint land cannot raise construction on the land as every co-sharer is a joint owner of every inch of the whole land.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 18th of March, 1992, whereby the order passed by Senior Sub-Judge, Kurukshetra dated 10th of March, 1992, was set aside and temporary injunction was granted restraining the defendants from raising any sort of construction over the suit land till the decision of the suit on merits. The trial Court was directed by the appellate Court to decide the case expeditiously not later than six months.

2. In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Chhajju Ram plaintiff filed a suit against Om Prakash and other defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any type of construction over the suit land measuring 12 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in Village Bir Pipli District Kurukshetra, on the averments that Ram Saran Dass was owner in possession of the suit land, which, after his death was inherited by his widow Smt. Rameshwari Devi and his daughters. Smt. Rekha, one of the heirs, sold her 1/6th share out of the suit land to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 28th of May, 1991 and as such the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit land. It was further pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with defendant No. 3 Halga Patwari got the suit land partitioned by playing fraud upon the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file present suit for declaration that the mutation on the basis of the partition is illegal, void and is an act of fraud, which still pending. It was further pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with defendant No. 3 are adament to raise construction on the front portion of the land in suit and in case the defendants are not restrained from, doing so, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss. On similar grounds, application for grant of temporary injunction was moved.

3. The defendants pleaded that vide Mutation No. 1092 sanctioned on 16-8-1991, the land in suit stands partitioned between the co-owners and each co-owner has become exclusive owner in possession of land which fall to his share. It was pleaded that in partition plaintiff got plot No. 5 measuring 1 Kanal comprised in khasra No. 28 / 21/4 and had no right or title in the remaining suit land which fell to the share of other co-owners. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has no right to file the suit and cannot seek injunction prayed for as Jiwan Dass defendant No. 2 purchased specified land measuring 2 Kanals 1 Marlas situated in Rect. No. 28 Khasra No. 20 / 6(1l), 20 / 3 / (0-7) 31 min north (0-13) from Smt. Rameshwari Devi widow of Ram Saran Dass, for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 / - vide registered sale deed dated 3rd of May, 1991. It was further pleaded that in the partition defendant No. 2 was allotted some land out of which plot measuring 70 square yards (2 Marlas) was sold to defendant No. 3 and thus defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are exclusive owners in possession of the said land and have every right to raise construction thereon. It was next pleaded that the partition took place with the consent and free will of all the co-owners and that the construction work is going on at the spot and building material is also lying there.

4. The learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the defendant / petitioners, it was mainly submitted that after the private partition took place between the co-owners on 15-6-1991, the defendants are in exclusive possession of specific portion of land which had fallen to their share in the partition proceedings and as such the plaintiff has no right or title in the suit land which is in exclusive possession of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and that the appellate Court had erred in law in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court.

5. The parties are at variance as far as the question of partition of land in suit amongst all the co-owners including the plaintiff is concerned. Thus the partition deed, w