The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession of joint property by co-owners is deemed to be possession of all, and a co-owner cannot claim exclusive possession without legal partition.

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral) - As the Courts below duly recapitulated, discussed the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties in detail, therefore, there appears to be no necessity to again reproduce and repeat the same in this context. However, the crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that Manmohan Kaur widow of Dalip Singh appellant-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”), filed the suit for a decree of possession, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Devinder Pal Singh son of Lal Singh respondent-defendant (for short “the defendant”), from raising any construction on and from alienating in any manner, the land in dispute, measuring 4 marlas, being 4/374th shares out of the total land measuring 18 kanals 14 marlas, comprised in Khewat Nos. 317 & 318, Khatauni No.343 Khasra Nos.174//26 (18-14), situated within the revenue estate of village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that she purchased the land measuring 17 marlas, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 26.5.1995 from the attorney of original owner Joginder Singh. The possession of the land was stated to have been delivered to her at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was claimed that the defendant also purchased the land measuring 3 marlas from co-owner Angrez Singh, being 3/127th shares out of the land measuring 6 kanals 7 marlas, bearing Khasra No.174//18/2 (6-7), situated within the revenue estate of village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant has forcibly constructed the foundation of disputed portion, in order to show his possession on the land in dispute, without any legal right. She (plaintiff) requested him not to raise the construction on the suit land, but in vain, which necessitated her to file the suit.

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiff that she has purchased the land measuring 17 marlas, being 4/374th share, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 26.5.1995 from the attorney of original owner Joginder Singh. Sequelly, the defendant has also purchased the land measuring 3 marlas, being 3/127th shares out of the land measuring 6 kanals 7 marlas from co-owner Angrez Singh, bearing Khasra No.174//18/2 (6-7), situated within the revenue estate of village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, but the defendant has illegally constructed the foundation, in order to show his possession on the land in dispute, without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession and permanent injunction against the defendant in the manner depicted hereinabove.

4. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia pleading certain additional objections of maintainability of the suit; estoppel, misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. On merits, according to the defendant that plaintiff never came in possession of the suit property. Angrez Singh, Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh sons of Karora Singh, were residing jointly at village Naya Gaon Karoran upto 1996 and the suit land were jointly owned and possessed by them. A family settlement was stated to have been taken place between them, in which, the land in dispute had fallen to the share of Angrez Singh, who alienated the same to the defendant and possession was also delivered to him at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was explained that he (defendant) has rightly constructed his shed on his land in dispute in the month of August 1997. In all, the defendant claimed that he is owner and in possession and plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the property in dispute. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant