IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9541-2025

DECIDED ON: 12.01.2026

BALI SINGH @ BALI RAM AND ANOTHER

.....PETITIONERS

VERSUS

BABITA RANI AND ANOTHER

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Anshul Gupta, Advocate and

Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate

for the petitioners.

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