The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing exclusive possession in land disputes and highlights the principle that no injunction can be granted against a co-sharer, with the only remedy being to seek partition of the joint land.

Darshan Singh, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-company has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his accomplices, agents and other persons from taking the forcible possession, dispossessing the plaintiffs and causing loss to the club and office buildings and interfering in the peaceful use and enjoyment thereof by the plaintiffs by locking the said buildings, obstructing the day to day running of club and offices.

3. The plaintiff-company has purchased considerable portion of land situated in the revenue estate of village Raisina, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon more than 15 years back. After the said purchase, they leveled the land, craved out the roads and developed the area under the name "Aravali Retreat". Various farm houses were constructed by them which were separated by means of barbed wife, 'pakka' boundary walls and some of them have been sold by the plaintiffs to the third parties. The major portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff-company is comprised of Khewat No. 57 measuring 2445 kanals and 8 Marlas. They have constructed the club building and office complex in rectangle no. 50, Killa No. 4, 5, 6, 16, 25 and rectangle No. 51, Killa No. 1, 10, 11, 20, 21 about 15 years back. They have constructed these buildings openly, peacefully and with the knowledge of all the concerned and none had ever objected to these acts of the plaintiffs. They have also obtained the electric connections and telephone numbers. It is further pleaded that defendant is threatening to forcibly lock their club and office buildings and is adamant to interfere in the day to day working of the club. He wants to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs on the ground that he has purchased 978/48908 share in the joint land of rectangle no. 50 and 51 from one Brijesh son of Hem Singh vide sale deed dated 06.02.2007. Hence this suit.

4. Defendant-respondent contested the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not entitled to raise the construction without the consent of other co-sharers or without getting the land partitioned from the Competent Authority. The plaintiff had raised the illegal construction without seeking the permission from the other co-sharers as well as District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurgaon (for short 'D.T.P') and the plaintiffs are habitual land grabbers. The land in dispute is still joint and un-partitioned. The plaintiffs could not have raised the structures alleged by them without getting the Change of Land User (for short 'CLU') by the Government of Haryana and HUDA department. Few constructions raised by them were demolished by DTP (Enforcement), Gurgaon. The respondent-defendant has also denied the existence of any club and office buildings. The possession of the plaintiffs on any specific portion of the joint land was also denied.

5. Plaintiffs filed the replication refuting the stand of the defendant and reiterated the averments of the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 27.05.2008:-

1. Whether the suit has been instituted through duly authorised person as alleged? OPP

2. Whether plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the land detailed in para no. 4 of the plaint shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint and the defendant has no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs thereupon? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit, by their own act, conduct, acquiescence and latches etc? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD

6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

7. Whether the s