##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

115

RSA-1046-2022(O&M)

Date of decision: 28.01.2026

SAVITRI DEVI

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

Daulat Ram and others

. . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Gulshan Nandwani, Advocate, for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff,

assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the relief of

permanent injunction sought by him has been declined.

2. The factual matrix, as borne out from the record, is that the

plaintiff instituted a suit claiming himself to be owner in possession of the

suit land on the basis of a sale deed bearing Vasika No.2106 dated

02.07.2009, followed by mutation No.3041 dated 05.04.2010. It was

pleaded that in terms of the sale deed, possession of a specific portion of

the suit land, delineated by letters ABCD and shown in blue colour in the

site plan appended with the plaint, had been delivered to her. According to

the plaintiff, the defendants had no concern with the said portion, yet the

revenue record continued to reflect their names, prompting him to seek

correction of the same. On refusal by the defendants, the present suit for

declaration and permanent injunction was filed.

3. The defendants contested the suit by pleading that the plaintiff

had purchased only an undivided share, namely 1/16th share in one khasra

number and 1/48th share in another khasra number of the suit land. It was

specifically pleaded that no partition proceedings had ever taken place and,

therefore, there could be no question of delivery of exclusive physical

1 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 16-02-2026 01:58:05 :::

RSA-1046-2022 2026:PHHC: 011972

possession of any specific portion to the plaintiff. On these premises,

dismissal of the suit was sought.

4. Upon framing of issues and appreciation of the evidence led by

the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated

26.10.2016. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was partly accepted by the

First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.11.2019.

5. The Appellate Court recorded a finding that by virtue of the

sale deed, the plaintiff had indeed become a co-owner in the joint property.

However, it was further held that the plaintiff had failed to establish her

exclusive possession over any demarcated portion of the suit land.

6. The First Appellate Court further held that the plaintiff had

merely stepped into the shoes of his vendors, who themselves held only an

undivided interest in the joint property. In the absence of any prior partition

or evidence of settled exclusive possession, the plaintiff was not entitled to

seek an injunction against the other co-owners. Consequently, while a

declaration of co-ownership was granted in favour of the plaintiff, the relief

of permanent injunction was declined.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the said findings

by placing reliance on the recital in the sale deed to the effect that

possession of the suit property had been delivered to the plaintiff.

8. However, when specifically queried by this Court, learned

counsel was unable to point out any evidence on record to establish that

the vendors of the plaintiff were themselves in exclusive physical

possession of the specific portion claimed so as to validly deliver the same

to the plaintiff. A mere recital of delivery of possession in a sale deed, in the

context of joint property, does not ipso facto establish exclusive possession,

particularly when the vendors themselves were co-sharers in an un-

partitioned holding.

9. It is a settled principle of law that a co-owner is deemed to be

in possession of every inch of the joint property, but such possession is

joint and not exclusive. In the absence of partition by metes and bounds or

proof of settled exclusive possession, a co-owner cannot seek an injunction

Page 2 of 3

2 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 16-02-2026 01:58:05 :::

RSA-1046-2022 2026:PHHC: 011972

to restrain other co-owners from exerci