A temporary injunction cannot be granted against a co-owner without proof of ouster, especially when the claim is based on adverse possession and ownership of the land is disputed.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners–plaintiffs, seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed, as also the subsequent impugned order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, dismissing the civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by the petitioners against the aforesaid order of the trial court.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that the petitioners, who are the sons of late Dayal Singh, instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent– defendant Baldev Singh, who is also their brother, alleging that in the ownership column of the Jamabandi for the year 2019–20 and other revenue records, the suit land is recorded in the names of different persons, and that with respect to correction of these entries, various suits are pending before different civil courts. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant are owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession, and in this regard, several suits are already pending wherein the respective parties have claimed ownership on the same basis. The present dispute, however, pertains only to certain Safeda (poplar) trees standing on the suit land. The petitioners claimed that though the ownership of the land is jointly vested in both the plaintiffs and the defendant, the defendant had started cutting and harvesting the trees from the land exclusively, without their consent and to their exclusion. It was asserted that the plaintiffs and the defendant are in joint possession of the land and that the trees standing thereon are also their joint property. The plaintiffs claimed two-thirds share in the land and the trees, while the remaining one-third belongs to the defendant. It was also pleaded that in the cultivation column of the Jamabandi, the name of their father, late Dayal Singh, still continues to appear as “gair marusi,” even though he had expired many years ago, and that after his death, the plaintiffs and the defendant inherited his estate in equal shares and continue to remain in joint possession thereof.

3. On these averments, the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from cutting, removing, or disposing of the trees standing on the land without partition of the property by metes and bounds. During the pendency of the proceedings, the defendant Baldev Singh expired, and his legal representatives were brought on record. However, at the time when the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 was passed by the trial court, the defendant was alive, and his death occurred subsequently during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court.

4. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, after hearing the parties and examining the record, dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. The trial court observed that as per the Jamabandi for the year 2019–20, the ownership of the suit land stands recorded in the names of various persons who are not parties to the present suit. However, in the cultivation column, the name of late Dayal Singh, father of the plaintiffs and the defendant, is recorded as “gair marusi.” The plaintiffs had produced photographs showing the standing trees, whereas the defendant had filed copies of pleadings and zimni orders pertaining to other civil suits pending between the same parties regarding the same land. The trial court took into consideration the judgment of this Court in ‘ Uttam Singh v. Desh Raj ’, 1990 (1) PLR 1