Possession of one co-sharer is deemed possession of all; injunctions cannot be granted against co-sharers unless partition occurs.

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting-aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind in CIS (CMA) No.33/2025 titled as ‘Ravinder Kumar and Another Versus Suman Lata and Others’ (Annexure P-7) whereby the learned ADJ Kaithal has set aside the interim order dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jind in civil Suit No.339 of 2025, which is illegal, void, arbitrary.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction claiming that they were owners in exclusive possession of the banquet hall situated at Village Kishanpura, District Jind, on the basis of Jamabandi entries and municipal records. They alleged that the defendants, who have no concern with the property, attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and sought interim protection. The defendants contested the suit, contending that they had become co-owners by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 06.06.2024 and 07.06.2024 executed by Mahender Singh, one of the recorded co-owners. They claimed that as co-sharers they were entitled to joint possession of suit property and that no injunction could be granted against them. Vide order dated 23.05.2025, the learned trial Court allowed the plaintiffs’ application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants. However, vide impugned order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, reversed the injunction order, holding that the property is joint and the defendants are co-sharers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of the suit property as reflected in the Jamabandi entries and property tax records, and that the banquet hall is being operated under their licence and electricity connection. It was further urged that once the respondents’ sale deeds specify certain boundaries, they cannot claim co-ownership in the entire property, and therefore, the trial court had rightly granted injunction which the appellate court erred in vacating.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the property is joint in nature and defendant No.2, having purchased the share of co-sharer Mahender Singh through registered sale deeds, has stepped into his shoes and became a co-owner. It was contended that in law possession of one co-sharer is possession of all, and unless partition takes place no co-owner can claim exclusive possession. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Das v. Sitabai & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6508 of 2005, Mange Ram v. Ram Chander , 2002 (3) RCR (Civil) 303 (SC) , and of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup , RSA No.886 of 1969, to argue that injunction cannot be granted against a co-sharer.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper book.

6. Vide order dated 23.05.2025, the learned trial Court stated that “mere payment of electricity charges by defendant No.1 cannot be considered as an evidence of the possession of defendants over the suit property. It only indicates that the defendant No.1 had made payment on behalf of plaintiffs under some arrangement or understanding and he has a separate right to recover such payment from them”. While it is an admitted fact that the property in dispute originally stood jointly owned by the plaintiffs, the proforma defendant, and Mahender Singh. Defendant No.2, through registered sale deeds dated 06.06.2024 and 07.06.2024, has purchased Mahender Singh’s share and