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.

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 the plaintiffs that the defendants, without legally partitioning the suit property, had started raising construction over the joint land adjacent to the road on the most valuable portion of the suit property, despite being requested by the plaintiffs not to raise construction without getting the land partitioned.

2.1 In pursuance to the notice of the suit, respondent/defendant No. 1 appeared and contested the suit while raising preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, cause of action, concealment of material facts, estoppel and jurisdiction, inter alia. Respondents/defendants No. 2 and 3 were served but failed to appear and were, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

2.2 Replication was not filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs and six issues, including the issue of ‘relief’, were framed by the learned lower court. Both parties led their respective evidence and produced documents. 2.3 Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire record, the learned lower court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-4).

2.4 Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Karnal (Annexure P-5). Along with the appeal, an application for restraining the defendants from raising construction over the suit land and from changing the nature thereof till the final disposal of the appeal was also filed by the petitioners/appellants (Annexure P-6). However, the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dismissal the application vide order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) (now under challenge).

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book very carefully.

5. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that a suit for partition of the suit property is already pending. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, in its judgment dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), in paragraph No. 13, has categorically held that the plaintiffs as well as the defendants have been cultivating and occupying their specific shares, which are in their exclusive possession since long, and have also raised construction over their respective portions. It was further observed that a presumption of private partition can be drawn. It was also noticed that Mange Ram (petitioner No. 1) admitted in his statement that he did not object when defendants No. 1 and 2 raised construction of their shop. Thus, from the said statement, it can be safely inferred that the present respondents had raised construction with the consent of petitioner No. 1-Mange Ram.

6. Learn