Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 617
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
Swaran Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Sr. Superintendent of Police,.Hoshiarpur - Respondents
Criminal Misc. No. 18805-M of 1999.
Decided On : 7 July, 1999
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate.
Co-owners have equal rights and coordinate interest in the jointly owned property, entitling each co-owner to enjoyment and possession equal to that of the others.
Headnote:
Co-ownership - Trespass and Theft - Joint property rights and equal entitlement of co-owners - Every co-owner has a right to enjoyment and possession equal to that of the other co-owner or co-owners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to direct the respondents to register a case against other co-sharers for trespass and theft on a jointly owned land. The respondents were accused of forcibly cutting the crop, leading to the petitioner's claim of trespass and theft.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the property was joint, and the petitioner was a co-sharer along with the respondents, the respondents had not committed the offences of theft and trespass. The court suggested that the petitioner could file a suit for injunction or partition to protect his possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents had committed trespass and theft on the jointly owned land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that all co-owners have equal rights and coordinate interest in the property, and each co-owner has a right to enjoyment and possession equal to that of the other co-owner or co-owners.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court advised the petitioner to pursue legal action for injunction or partition if he wished to protect his possession of the property.
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. - This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is filed to direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to register a case against respondents Nos. 3 to 6. According to the petitioner, he and respondents Nos. 4 and 6 are co-sharers in the land situated in village Matiana. According to him, the respondent are having 1/3rd share in the land and one Joginder Singh executed a will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing 1/3rd of the property to which he is entitled. According to the petitioner, respondents No. 3 to 6 forcibly cut crop and, therefore, they committed trespass and theft of the crop. He is therefore seeking registration of the case against respondents Nos. 3 to 6 for the offences of trespass and theft.
2. Admittedly, the property is joint property. Even according to the petitioner he is co-sharer along with respondents Nos. 3 to 6. It cannot be disputed that every co-sharer is entitled to an interest in every inch of the land. Reference may be made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kochkunju Nair v. Koshy Alexander and others, 1999(III) SLT 183 wherein it has been held as follows :-
"That all co-owners have equal rights and coordinate interest in the property though their shares may be either fixed or indeterminate. Every co-owner has a right to enjoyment and possession equal to that of the other co-owner or co-owners. Each co-owner has in theory interest in every infinitesimal portion of the subject-matter and each has the right irrespective of the quantity of his interest to be in possession of every part and parcel of the property jointly with others."
3. Since respondents Nos. 3 to 6 are also entitled to the property they have committed no offence of theft and trespass. If the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the property, it is always open to him to file a suit for injunction and protect his possession or he may file a suit for partition of the property. Even if it is assumed that the respondents cut the crop, they have not committed offence of theft.
This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Copy of the order be given dasti.
Petition dismissed.
