1. Civil revision against refusal of temporary injunction in suit between co-sharers over joint agricultural land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mandeep Pannu, J
Bali Singh @ Bali Ram – Appellant
Versus
Babita Rani – Respondent
CR-9541-2025
Important Points
In joint unpartitioned land, one co-sharer cannot be restrained from enjoying the property unless exclusive possession or ouster is proved; a registered sale deed grants the purchaser co-ownership rights subject to partition.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Temporary Injunction - Dispute between co-sharers - Grant of injunction against a co-owner in joint and unpartitioned land is ordinarily not permissible as possession of joint property by one co-owner is considered possession of all, unless there is clear proof of ouster or exclusive possession. (Para 6, 11)
(B) Registered Sale Deed - Rights of purchaser - A purchaser of an undivided share in joint land, via a registered sale deed, steps into the shoes of the vendor and acquires the right to enjoy the property as a co-sharer, subject to partition by metes and bounds. (Para 9, 12)
(C) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution - Interference by the High Court is not warranted in discretionary orders of subordinate courts unless the findings are perverse or suffer from jurisdictional error, even if a different view is possible. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in favour of one co-sharer against another in respect of joint unpartitioned agricultural land in the absence of proof of exclusive possession or ouster.
(B) Registered Sale Deed - Rights of purchaser - A purchaser of an undivided share in joint land, via a registered sale deed, steps into the shoes of the vendor and acquires the right to enjoy the property as a co-sharer, subject to partition by metes and bounds. (Para 9, 12)
(C) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution - Interference by the High Court is not warranted in discretionary orders of subordinate courts unless the findings are perverse or suffer from jurisdictional error, even if a different view is possible. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in favour of one co-sharer against another in respect of joint unpartitioned agricultural land in the absence of proof of exclusive possession or ouster.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anshul Gupta, Pawan Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anshul Gupta, Pawan Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs sought injunction to restrain defendants from entering suit land; defendants claimed lawful purchase and co-sharer status. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Co-owner's possession is possession of all; injunction not granted without proof of exclusive possession or ouster. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. One co-sharer cannot be restrained from enjoying joint property unless exclusive possession, ouster, or irreparable injury is proved. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Civil revision petition dismissed; orders of courts below upheld for lack of jurisdictional error. (Para 15 )
6. Can a temporary injunction be granted between co-sharers of joint property?
No, ordinarily injunction is not granted between co-sharers unless there is clear proof of exclusive possession, ouster, or threatened irreparable injury. (Para 6 , 11 )
7. What is the legal status of a co-sharer who purchases an undivided share via registered sale deed?
The purchaser steps into the shoes of the vendor and becomes a co-sharer entitled to joint enjoyment of the property subject to partition by metes and bounds. (Para 9 , 12 )
8. What is the standard for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 for temporary injunction orders?
Interference is not warranted merely because a different view is possible; findings must be perverse or suffer jurisdictional error. (Para 14 )
9. Does refusal of injunction cause irreparable loss to plaintiffs in a co-sharer dispute over joint land?
No, because the remedy of partition remains open and any use by a co-sharer does not irreversibly prejudice rights of other co-sharers. (Para 13 )
10. What must a plaintiff prove to obtain an injunction against a co-sharer in joint agricultural land?
The plaintiff must prove exclusive physical possession over a defined portion and ouster or threatened irreparable injury. (Para 7 , 11 )
MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)
1. Bali Singh @ Bali Ram and another, plaintiffs in the suit, have filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed, as well as the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of the trial Court.
2. The suit has been instituted by Bali Singh @ Bali Ram and Joginder Singh claiming themselves to be co-sharers in land measuring 138 kanals 08 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Ravanhera, Sub-Tehsil Dhand, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that the suit land is joint and unpartitioned and that they are in possession as co-sharers. It is alleged that the defendants, on the strength of sale deed No. 322/1 dated 13.05.2025, are threatening to enter into possession of the suit land without getting their share separated through partition. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the recital regarding delivery of possession in the sale deed is false and that the vendors of the defendants were never in exclusive possession of any specific portion of the joint land.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, an application for temporary injunction was filed seeking restraint against the defendants from interfering in the alleged possession of the plaintiffs or from entering upon the suit land till final adjudication of the suit.
4. The defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement as well as reply to the injunction application. The defence taken is that the defendants have lawfully purchased land measuring 6 kanals 10 marlas 6 sarsai out of the joint holding by a registered sale deed and that possession has been delivered to them. It has been pleaded that the sale deed was preceded by a duly executed and attested agreement to sell dated 13.01.2025 and that the possession claimed by the defendants is for and on behalf of all co-sharers, subject to adjustment at the time of partition. The entitlement of the plaintiffs to seek restraint against a co-sharer has also been disputed.
5. After considering the pleadings, documents on record and the submissions advanced, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. The trial Court recorded that grant of temporary injunction is discretionary and governed by the three well-settled ingredients, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
6. The trial Court observed that the suit land is admittedly joint and unpartitioned and that a co-owner has an interest in the whole property as well as in every parcel thereof. Possession of joint property by one co-owner is, in the eye of law, possession of all. Mere occupation of a larger portion does not amount to ouster. Reliance was placed upon the judgment in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup 1981 PLJ 204 (P&H), to hold that ad-interim injunction ordinarily cannot be granted in favour of a joint owner against another co-owner.
7. The trial Court further held that the plaintiffs failed to place on record any material to establish exclusive possession over any defined portion of the suit land. In the absence of proof of exclusive possession, a co-sharer cannot seek to restrain another co-sharer from using the joint property in a husband-like manner. The proper remedy, as observed, is to seek partition of the joint holding.
8. Findings were also recorded that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs if injunction is declined and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants, who have become co-sharers on the strength of a registered document. On an overall consideration, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy all three i
