IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.
Pritam Singh Gill - Appellant
Versus
Dalbir Singh And Another - Respondents
RSA-768-2026 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-02-2026
JUDGMENT :
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.
1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the appeal instituted by the plaintiff-appellant has been accepted and the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, has been set aside.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he, alongwith his brothers Santokh Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Ajit Singh and some other purchasers, is co-sharer in the joint khata of the suit land. Defendant No.1 has purchased 8 kanals, 10 marlas and 7 sarsai of land from Lakhwinder Singh, brother of the plaintiff, to the extent of 1/5 share. Defendant No.1 has also constructed an electric power house adjacent to the disputed house. Now, defendant No.1, in connivance with defendant No.2, wants to make a Pucca Rasta and other construction on the valuable part of the suit property more than his share illegally and forcibly. In case, he is allowed to raise a Pucca Rasta or other construction and to change the nature of the suit land without getting the same partitioned, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. A decree for permanent injunction was sought for restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land and from raising construction over valuable portion of the suit property detailed and described in the head note of the plaint.
3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and opposed the suit, preliminarily on the grounds of cause of action, mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties and that defendant No.1 has never threatened to change the nature of the suit property. It is submitted that defendant No.1 is the Managing Director of M/s Gill Power Generation Company Pvt. Ltd., but he has been impleaded as a party in his individual capacity. The said company is under an agreement with Punjab Energy Development Agency (PEDA) for setting up hydro power plants for generation of electricity on Build Own & Operate (BOO) basis at Tibri and Babehali and for this purpose, the land on the sides of the concerned canal belonging to the Punjab Irrigation Department was given on lease by the Government Agency to the said company and a tripartite agreement and lease deed were duly executed. The plaintiff has no concern with the land under lease with defendant No.1 and has not approached the Court with clean hands, as the power house was constructed by the said company in the year 2003 on the right bank of the main branch upper canal as per the agreement and lease deed on the Babehali Bridge reduce distance (RD) 10504 and the power channel and building extend from RD 10300 to RD 11104 and the construction was raised over the land belonging to PEDA and the Irrigation Department and the revenue number of the same is 1927. The canal originates from Madhupur head works towards Village Tibri Cantonment and then bifurcates into two canals, namely Kasur Branch Upper (KBU) and Main Branch Upper (MBU) and the canals have two banks, i.e., right and left. Irrigation land is measured from the centre line of the canal and the width of land from RD 10000 to RD 13000 is 245 feet on the right side and 220 feet on the left side and the MBU land plan is attached. The company is in possession of 245 feet of land from RD 10300 to RD 11104 over which a boundary wall has been constructed. The land width of the right bank is 245 feet and concrete pillars have been erected by the Irrigation Department. The plaintiff wants to encroach upon the area of land leased out in favour of the company, which is owned by PEDA/Irrigation Department and is under lease with the company. The plaintiff approached the office of the Irrigation Department to know the length and breadth of the banks of the canal and information was provided to him through RTI informing him that the width of land is 245 feet from th
The plaintiff has to establish substantial loss or injury being caused by the construction being undertaken/raised by co-sharer/co-owner, to tilt the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff ....
Co-sharer suppressing own construction on joint land approaches without clean hands and cannot restrain others from constructing on their exclusive portion; injunction requires proof of prejudice or ....
(1) Injunction – Such three ingredients are not only to exist but must co-exist – Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title, which requires to be established on evidence at trial.....
Co-owner not entitled to injunction against another's construction on joint land unless proved to amount to ouster or detriment to rights; requires evidence beyond sole testimony, mere jointness insu....
Co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in common property absolutely and simply because he is a co-owner unless any act of person in possessi....
Civil Law - Grant of Temporary Injunction - Rights and Liabilities of Co-owners - A co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in common property....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.