The main legal point established in the judgment is that a temporary injunction can be granted to allow joint usage of a property in a joint ownership dispute, as long as it serves the interests of the co-sharers and is validly exercised on sound principles of law.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvandahiya, J. - This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 14.12.2020 and 12.01.2021 (Annexures P-6 and P-7 respectively) passed by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court respectively, whereby application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was allowed, and appeal against the same filed by the petitioners/defendants was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are, the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration as well as mandatory injunction pleading that plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 with other co-sharers were joint owners of the suit land, which has not been partitioned. But by way of mutual adjustment, the parties and other co-sharers were cultivating separate killa numbers for the last several years as per their shares. It was further pleaded that there existed a joint well in Rectangle No.36, killa No.22/2 (7-14) in which electricity connection was installed in the name of late Prabhu Singh son of Roop Chand (common ancestor of the parties) with joint expenses and consent of all the co-sharers, since long. Prabhu Singh died issueless more than 15 years back, still the electricity connection continued in his name upto August, 2020. The plaintiffs had been cultivating their lands with the said tubewell for the last many years and paying the electricity bills also as per their shares. Similarly, the petitioners/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants') and other co-sharers were also cultivating their land from the said tubewell. However, the defendants in collusion with one Raj Kumar, who is working in the office of DHBVN, Buroli, got the electricity connection transferred in the name of defendant No.1. This was done without the plaintiffs' consent, only to deprive them of joint usage of the tubewell and electricity connection. The prayer in the application for interim injunction is that the plaintiffs may be allowed to use the said electric well jointly for irrigating lands as per their share on payment of electricity charges, till final decision of the suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit, a joint written statement (Annexure P-3) was filed by defendants No.1 to 3. It was admitted that by virtue of mutual adjustment, all the co-sharers were in cultivating possession of specific portion of land being co-sharers, and also that the land had not been partitioned. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs had no concern with the tubewell installed in killa No.22/2 as also the electricity meter. As per jamabandi for 1960-61 this land was in possession of co-sharer Roopa, predecessor of the defendants. It was also pleaded that defendants never irrigated their fields by this tubewell, and they had installed separate tubewell over rectangle No.39, killa No.1 for the purpose of irrigating their lands, which was in their exclusive possession.

4. Interim injunction application filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by trial Court by order dated 14.12.2020, and the same was affirmed by lower appellate Court vide order dated 12.01.2021. The trial Court while allowing the application directed the defendants to allow the plaintiffs to use the said electricity connection three times in a week or on alternate days as per their wish, as a temporary measure.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contends that the order granting temporary injunction in fact amounts to allowing the suit itself, and final relief claimed in the suit can not be granted by way of interim injunction as per settled legal proposition. He has further contended that no injunction can be issued against co-sharers, and it is admitted fact on record that parties are co-sharers of the suit land. He has also contended that the land comprised in killa No.22/2 was exclusively occupied by the defendants and their predecessors