JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Petitioner is the defendant in the original suit. Respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction seeking decree of restrain against the defendant and his agents, servants from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiffs from land described in the head note of the plaint admeasuring 111 bighas 18 biswas situated at village Passiana, Teshil and District Patiala in any manner except by way of partition.

2. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the suit land is a joint land. Defendant claims to have purchased a share thereof admeasuring 28 bighas 1 Vi biswas vide sale deed dated 04.07.2002. On the strength of the said sale deed, the defendant-petitioner intends to dispossess the plaintiffs. Alongwith plaint, plaintiffs filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking interim injunction. The suit is being contested by the defendant. Defendant asserted that he purchased part of the suit land vide sale deed dated 04.07.2002. He being co-sharer in joint possession of the suit land, simple suit for permanent injunction by a co-sharer against the co-sharer is not maintainable.

3. Trial Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land except in accordance with law.

4. In an appeal preferred by the defendant, the order stands affirmed. Lower Appellate Court held that the remedy available to the petitioner-defendant is to seek separate possession by way of partition. He being vendee under a co-sharer, cannot be allowed to interfere in possession of the appellants until he shows that his vendor was in exclusive possession of his share of land.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are in teeth of settled canon of law that 'injunction cannot be granted against a co-sharer'. He asserts that even as per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs-respondents are not in exclusive possession of the suit land and thus simpliciter suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable at their behest against the petitioner who is a co-sharer in the suit property. In order to hammer-forth his contention, he relies upon law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup reported as 1981 PLJ 204 and the law laid down by 5 Judges Bench in the case of Ram Chander vs. Bhim Singh and others reported as 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 685. Further reliance is being placed upon T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. N. Madhava Rao & Ors. reported as 2019(2) RCR (Civil) 770.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that defendant-petitioner is a purchaser of an undivided share. There is no denial to the fact that the property still is joint. Thus, petitioner-defendant cannot claim to have been put in possession by his vendors. A purchaser of a share in a joint property can only claim possession by getting the property partitioned by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs being in possession of the suit property filed suit for permanent injunction seeking decree of restrained against defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs except by way of partition. Reliance is being placed upon Ramdas vs. Sitabai & Ors. 2009(7) SCC 444, Gajara Vishnu Gosavi v. Prakash nanasahed Kamble & Ors. 2009(10) SCC 654, Ram Murti Sharma and another vs. Prem Kumar and others 2001(2) PLR 13, Amarjit Kaur vs. Bikaram Singh & Anr. 2016(2) Law Herald 1343, Bhupinder Singh & others vs. Roop Singh & Another 2010(8) RCR (Civil) 788.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

8. It is not denied that the plaintiffs purchased share out of a joint holding. The inter se rights and liabilities of co-sharer as were settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 PB. 528 stand reiterated by Full Bench of this Court in Bhar