A co-owner not in possession cannot seek injunction unless the act of the co-owner in possession is detrimental to the interest of other co-owners.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this common order CR Nos.206 and 189 of 2019 are being disposed of. Since common issue is involved in both the petitions, therefore, for brevity, facts are being culled out from CR No.206 of 2019.

2. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), whereby the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Dera Bassi was set aside. The District Judge, Patiala accepted the appeal thereby allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from changing the nature of the suit property by way of raising any construction over the suit land.

3. Brief facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the defendants/petitioners are cosharers in the suit land and they are bent upon encroaching the land measuring 9 Bighas 3 Biswas without getting the same partitioned by metes and bounds. Plaintiff pleaded that a day before yesterday (i.e. date of filing of the suit), defendants came to the spot and threatened the officials of the plaintiff to raise construction over 9 Bighas 3 Biswas of land. Plaintiff pleaded that the land is joint and the defendants without being in exclusive possession have no right to raise construction over any part of the land till the same is partitioned in a lawful manner. Plaintiff pleaded in the suit that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff a day before yesterday from the date of filing of the suit, when the defendants did not adhere to the genuine request of the plaintiff and threatened to raise construction. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed.

4. Defendants contested the suit as well as the application by pleading that they have purchased the suit property by different sale deeds and they were put in possession over the specific part of the land and since then they are in exclusive possession. Defendants along with other co-vendees have been continuing in possession of the land measuring 9 Bighas 3 Biswas. Along with the written statement, sale deeds Annexures D-1 to D-13 were attached by the defendants/petitioners. By virtue of aforesaid sale deeds, defendants/petitioners pleaded exclusive possession over 9 Bighas 3 Biswas of land. They were put in possession of the khasra numbers mentioned in the sale deed and are continuing in exclusive possession of the same till date. Defendants/petitioners had raised the construction in the part of the suit property in their exclusive possession. Other co-purchasers had also raised construction in the remaining part of the suit land. Defendants/petitioners raised objections that other co-sharers were not made party to the suit. As far as defendants No.1 and 2 are concerned they had raised construction of showrooms in the year 2000 and 2011. They have also obtained water and electricity connections in the construction so raised by them over the suit land. Electricity bills and receipts regarding payments were duly attached with the written statement as Annexures D-14 to D-17.

5. It was further pleaded that defendants No.1, 2 and 6 before raising the said construction of showrooms over the suit property had got the sanction from the Municipal Council, Zirakpur. The documents viz. sanctioned site plan, fee receipts and building permits were also attached with the written statement as Annexures D-18 to D-26. Defendants No.1 and 2 had deposited fee with the Municipal Council, Zirakpur for raising further construction. Copy of receipt regarding deposit of the amount was also attached with the written statement. Defendants No.1 and 2 made structural changes in the construction of old showrooms. Photographs were also attached with the written statement as Annexures D-27 to Ex.D-31.

6. Defendants pleaded their exclusive possessi