Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6796
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUNDEEP SINGH BATH – Appellant
Versus
RAJINDER KAUR – Respondent
/25/2023
A co-owner cannot be restrained from interfering with the possession of another co-owner in the absence of exclusive possession.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - CO-OWNERSHIP - POSSESSION - [PLAINTIFF'S SUIT FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST CO-OWNER DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND CO-OWNER'S INHERITED SHARE]
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against his mother (defendant), claiming exclusive possession of a house purchased by his deceased father. The plaintiff alleged that his mother had divorced his father and had no ownership rights in the house. The defendant denied the divorce and claimed co-ownership of the house, stating that it was purchased with joint funds.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession and that the defendant had inherited a share in the house as a co-owner. The courts also found that the plaintiff's claim of divorce was not supported by any valid legal document.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had exclusive possession of the house. 2. Whether the defendant had any ownership rights in the house.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In the absence of exclusive possession, a co-owner cannot be restrained from interfering with the possession of another co-owner. 2. A co-owner has the right to possess and enjoy the property jointly with other co-owners.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit for injunction was dismissed.
RSA-25-2023 (O&M)
Page 1 of 6
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-25-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.01.2023
Sundeep Singh Bath
…Appellant
V/S
Rajinder Kaur
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
Forthe appellant.
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
For convenience, parties herein are described as per recitals before the
trial Court.
2.
Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below,
the plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court assailing the trial Court judgment
and decree dated 11.09.2017, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its
judgment and decree dated 06.09.2022.
3.
Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Courts below. Defendant is mother
of plaintiff. Plaintiff states that she got divorced from his father late Sh. Harbhajan
Singh on 13.03.1992. In this regard, defendant gave an affidavit to father of
plaintiff and after getting the divorce, defendant went abroad. At present, she is
residing at House No.38, Cheshire Road, Smethwick B67 6 DL (UK). Father of
plaintiff late Sh. Harbhajan Singh purchased a house i.e., H.No.3258/1, Sector 44-
D, Chandigarh from Sh. Bal Krishan on 09.05.1985 through General Power of
Attorney. At the time of purchasing the said house, plaintiff was minor aged about
3 years and was residing with his father until he expired in the year-2007. Plaintiff
has been residing in the above said house since the year-1985. He has got the
proof of Identity as Passport and Voter Identity Card on the same address. In the
VANDANA
2023.01.31 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA-25-2023 (O&M)
Page 2 of 6
year-2002, plaintiff went abroad for his further studies and came back in the year-
2007. He got married in the above said house in the year-2009 and had been
residing there till 2011. In the year-2011, plaintiff left for Delhi and the said House
was then rented out by him. In the month of September-2012, plaintiff got the
house vacated from the tenants and put a lock there. He also paid electricity and
water bills to the concerned departments. On 06.10.2013, plaintiff came to know
that defendant had come to India and wanted to take the possession of above said
house forcibly. Plaintiff requested defendant not to interfere into his peaceful
possession/occupation, but in vain. When plaintiff told defendant that he will
lodge a complaint with police, she then left the premises. But she threatened that
she will come again with some anti-social elements and will take the possession of
the house forcibly. Hence, the civil suit.
4.
Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement while
taking preliminary objections that present suit is not maintainable; plaintiff has not
come to the Court with clean hands; and plaintiff does not have any right, title or
interest in the property in dispute. On merits, it was stated therein that defendant
did not get divorce from late Harbhajan Singh, father of plaintiff and merely by
executing an affidavit as alleged, no divorce can take place. Further, it was
submitted that she went abroad and continued to be the wife of late Harbhajan
Singh throughout. House No.3258/1, Sector 44, Chandigarh was purchased by her
along with her husband late Sh. Harbhajan Singh jointly from their joint funds by
way of indirect sale as the Housing Board properties could not be sold through
registered sale deed. Part of the documents of sale were executed in favour of late
Sh. Harbhajan Singh and other documents were executed in favour of defendant.
Defendant is thus co-owner of the premises in question. She went abroad after
locking the house but the plaintiff entered therein after breaking open locks
illegally and forcibly. His possession over the house is illegal and at the most is
VANDANA
2023.01.31 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of t
