Back
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Satbir – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint ownership implies shared usage rights. (Para 2 , 8) |
| 2. usage rights depend on ownership nature and existing agreements. (Para 4 , 9) |
| 3. co-sharers cannot be restricted from using joint resources. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. established law favors shared usage of common resources. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. revision petition allowed; usage rights subject to equitable terms. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
The present civil revision petition has been filed for setting-aside the judgment of the lower appellate court dated 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) by which, the order passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, has been set-aside.
2. As per the facts, which have come on record, the land in question is in joint ownership of three brothers, who are the parties to the present petition. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the tube well, which is situated in the jointly owned land, be allowed to be used by the petitioner-plaintiff as well and the respondents-defendants be restrained from raising any obstru
The right to shared resources supersedes claims of exclusive ownership among co-sharers regarding the use of a tubewell electricity connection.
The rights of co-owners regarding joint property must be equally respected without arbitrary division pending final determination.
Co-owners cannot raise construction on joint property without consent from other co-owners, and must substantiate claims of irreparable loss to obtain an injunction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
