114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 AMRIK SINGH ....Petitioner Versus INDERPAL KAUR AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

Petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by impugned order dated

29.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naraingarh and order dated 07.01.2026, passed by learned District Judge, Ambala, whereby application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC as well as appeal against dismissal of his application, were dismissed by the Court of first instance and learned Appellate Court.

2. Petitioner/plaintiff had preferred a suit for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 from alienating, mortgaging or creating any sort of charge over the prime front portion of the plot comprised in Khewat No.724//663/2, Khatoni No.836, Khasra No.19//2/2 measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Dera, H.B. No.190, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Along with the suit he had preferred application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking to restrain respondents/defendants from raising construction during the pendency of suit.

3. It is the case of petitioner/plaintiff that he is a co-sharer to the extent of 17 marlas out of land measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas.

4. However, respondents/defendants have disputed facts asserted by petitioner/plaintiff. In their reply, respondents/defendants have specifically raised objection that petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction only qua one part of joint property from the same Khewat bearing Khewat No.724 comprised of Khasra No.19//2/2 measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas and Khasra No.77/11. Khasra No.19/2/2 was claimed to be in exclusive possession of defendant No.1. It is asserted that suit was filed without disclosing that land comprised in Khasra No.77/11 out of which petitioner/plaintiff himself had carved a colony and has executed various sale deeds of plots and gave specific possession of the plots is part of same khewat and joint land. It was further pleaded by defendants that shops and residential houses are in existence over Khasra No.77/11 which is also joint in same khewat which were either raised by petitioner/plaintiff or were raised by subsequent vendees to whom petitioner/plaintiff had sold the land. That when respondents/defendants had started construction over the land which is equivalent to their share and is in their exclusive possession, petitioner/plaintiff is objecting and claiming 17 marlas not out of total land, only from 1 kanal 14 marlas which is in exclusive possession of respondents/defendants without disclosing that he is already in possession of his share in Khasra No.77/11.

5. Petitioner/plaintiff is seeking to restrain respondents/defendants from raising construction over the suit property which is in exclusive possession of respondents/defendants. No prima facie material has been shown which can lead to conclusion that petitioner/plaintiff is in actual physical possession of land out of 1 kanal 14 marlas of land which is subject matter of present lis.

6. The inter se rights and liabilities of the co-sharers is not res integra. Full bench of this court in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 after taking note of judgment of Division Bench of this Court Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Pb. 528, had approved and affirmed following propositions, inter alia :-

(1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it.

(2) Possession of joint property by one co-owner, is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession.

(3) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf