The rights of co-owners regarding joint property must be equally respected without arbitrary division pending final determination.

JUDGMENT : 

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.

The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent in C.A. No.60 of 2022, titled as 'Kulwinder Singh v. Bhupinder Singh', was allowed, modifying the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amloh, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to draw the water from the electric motor connection No. AP-05-0074 (7^1/2 BHP) is 1/6th share, while the respondent was entitled to 5/6th share.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent are the real brothers. The electric motor in dispute, bearing A/C No. AP-05-0074, stands in the name of their deceased father, Sh. Gurcharan Singh, and was installed on the land owned by him. Sh. Gurcharan Singh executed a registered Will in favour of his wife, Smt. Surinder Kaur. Upon her demise on 02.02.2020, her estate devolved equally to the petitioner and respondent in terms of her registered Will, as sanctioned by Mutation No.1115 dated 23.04.2021. This estate included the land and the electric motor/tubewell along with its connection, motor room (Kotha), and water channel (Khal). The petitioner has been cultivating his land and using the motor for irrigation. The respondent has, however, obstructed and threatened the petitioner's lawful use of the motor and the water channel/Khal. In consequence, the petitioner filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC restraining the respondent from interfering with his peaceful use of the electric motor. The Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amloh, vide order dated 22.07.2022, had allowed the petitioner's application, holding that all co-sharers are entitled to use the motor jointly until partition. Aggrieved from the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was allowed on 18.08.2025, holding that the petitioner is entitled for 1/6th share and respondent is entitled for 5/6th share.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the impugned order is illegal, perverse, and contrary to law and facts. The learned Appellate Court wrongly allowed the application on disputed facts regarding alleged oral partition of the motor, which could only be determined after the conclusion of the trial. Learned counsel further asserts that petitioner inherited ^1/2 share in the estate of Smt. Surinder Kaur, including the electric motor/tubewell, its connection, water channel, and motor room. The affidavit dated 07.04.2021 relied upon by the respondent pertained to the petitioner's separate land purchased from Kapoor Singh prior to inheriting his mother's estate and cannot affect his subsequently accrued inheritance rights. He further emphasizes that both brothers are co-owners of the motor and that the Appellate Court's modification of the trial court order to 1/6th share is arbitrary and causes irreparable loss to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the cases titled as Gopi Ram v. Shyam Sunder, 2006 SCC Online P&H 465 and Om Prakash v. Ishwar Singh, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 777, holding that electric motors installed on jointly owned land constitute joint property, giving equal rights to cosharers.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the paper book.

5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to respondent as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expenses to the respondent.

6. It is clear from the perusal of the paper book, including the Wills of Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Smt. Surinder Kaur and Mutation No.1115 dated 23.04.2021, that the petitioner and respondent are co-owners of the estate to the e