IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 22.09.2025 Pronounced on : 28.10.2025 Gurpreet Singh & Anr. ....Appellants VERSUS Nirmal Kaur ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellants.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgements and decrees dated 04.12.2018 and 15.02.2022 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.

2. The suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff- appellants averring that the parties being joint owners along with other co- shares were in possession of their respective shares of the suit property and were cultivating the same. The suit property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds and the defendant-respondent wanted to change the nature of suit property without getting it partitioned and also wanted to install wire on the valuable portion of the suit property. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction. In the written statement the defendant-respondent took the plea that the suit property was orally partitioned whereby possession was exchanged and construction was raised by the plaintiff-appellants on their own share and therefore the plaintiff-appellants could not restrain the defendant-respondent from raising construction over the suit property which was in her possession and she was also competent to install the wire.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the court ? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3. Relief.

4. Vide judgement and decree dated 04.12.2018 the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. The plaintiff-appellants filed an appeal against the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. However, the said appeal of the plaintiff-appellants was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 15.02.2022. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has contended that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. It is urged that the suit property was joint and the defendant-respondent had no right to raise construction and put a wire around the valuable portion of the suit property and therefore their suit for permanent injunction deserved to be decreed.

6. Heard counsel for the plaintiff-appellants and perused the paperbook.

7. In the present case the suit of the plaintiff-appellants has been dismissed by both the Courts. It has been found by the Courts that the plaintiff-appellants had themselves raised construction over part of the suit property and were also cultivating portions of the suit property and thus they could not restrain the defendant-respondent from raising construction or putting a wire around the suit property in her possession. The suit property has been found to be still joint. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup [1981 PLJ 204] has held as under :

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

(2) Possession of joint property by one co-owner, is 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 entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all.

(4) The above rule admits of no exception when there is ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession of a co-owner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and de