Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Mange Ram – Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of co-sharer dispute (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. analysis of possession and consent (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. contestation on construction encroachment (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of the civil revision petition (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the application for stay filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners/appellants has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a suit for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs was that the parties are related inter se and are the offsprings of common ancestors. They are the owners in possession of the land as detailed in the suit. The plaintiffs and defendants are co-sharers in the joint land, which has not been partitioned by metes and bounds or before any competent Court of law. It was alleged by
A co-sharer in possession of joint land cannot be restrained from construction on their area without an official partition, particularly if prior consent to construction exists.
Co-owners cannot seek injunction against each other without proof of exclusive possession or detrimental acts; mere construction does not constitute ouster.
Writ Court should not interfere in cases of property rights and in dispute between private individuals unless there is any infraction of statute or when the private individual is shown to be in colli....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a co-owner who is not in exclusive possession of any part of the property is not entitled to seek an injunction against another co-owner, unle....
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
