A co-owner in possession of joint land may be restrained by injunction from raising large-scale construction (e.g., an industrial project) if such action is detrimental to the interests of other co-sharers or constitutes an ouster, overriding the general rule that the sole remedy is partition.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RSA’ for short) is preferred against the decree and judgment dated 07.01.2026, whereby the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendants. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Court below has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2019 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, which had decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. The appellant-defendants now approach this Court, assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the grounds of patent illegality and the involvement of substantial questions of law.

2. The controversy arises in the following factual backdrop is that the parties are co-sharers in the suit land. The defendant-company claims title through a series of successive transfers originating from one of the co-sharers, namely Tehal Singh, who sold land measuring 7 Kanals 5 Marlas out of the joint khewat. The said property was initially transferred in favour of M/s Essko Projects Limited, thereafter conveyed to M/s Acme Projects Private Limited, and ultimately came to vest in the present appellant–defendants by virtue of a registered sale deed executed by M/s Acme Projects Private Limited. It has been specifically pleaded by the respondent–plaintiffs that despite the execution of the sale deed, actual physical possession of any specific portion of the joint holding was never delivered to the appellant–defendants. It is further alleged that the appellant–defendants, without seeking partition of the joint khata, intend to carve out a colony and raise construction over the joint property, thereby prejudicially affecting the rights and interests of the co-sharers. Hence, the suit came to be instituted.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant–defendants, who asserted that they are in actual, physical, and exclusive possession of the land purchased by them. It was further contended that, after obtaining requisite approvals from the competent governmental authorities, the appellant–company had undertaken the development of a mega industrial project over the said land. The appellants further denied that the respondent–plaintiffs were in joint possession of the property and asserted their independent possessory rights thereupon.

4. Upon contest and appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit and held that the respondent–plaintiffs, being co-owners in joint possession of the suit property, were entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from raising any construction over the suit land without first effecting lawful partition thereof.

4.1. The appeal preferred by the appellant–defendants came to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, which affirmed the findings as well as the decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant–defendants contended that both the Courts below failed to correctly appreciate the pleadings and evidence available on record. It was argued that the exclusive possession of the appellant–defendant company over the land purchased by it has never been disputed and, therefore, the appellants were fully competent to utilize the said land and raise con