In RSA-6917-2016 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Co-sharer cannot be injuncted from selling his share of property even though property is sold by way of specific plot numbers and same would tantamount to alienation only of share by co-sharer: P&H HC
Justice Alka Sarin [13-01-2023]

Read Order: Jitender Kumar v. Maan Singh & Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 14, 2023: While dealing with a regular second appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below dismissing his suit for permanent injunction, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that  a plaintiff has to prove his own case by adducing oral and/or documentary evidence and prove the same.

The Bench of Justice Alka Sarin further held, "Further, even a co-sharer cannot be injuncted from selling his share of the property even though the property is sold by way of specific khasra numbers and the same would tantamount to alienation only of a share by the co-sharer".

Essentially, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant-respondents from raising any construction over any specific portion of the suit property and also from alienating any  specific portion of the suit property on which it was alleged that the parties were co-sharers and the plaintiff-appellant had 2/4 share in the same. 

It was further averred that the suit property was meant for commercial purposes and the defendant-respondents were adamant to raise construction over the portion of the suit property without getting the same partitioned. 

The defendant-respondents denied that the suit property was joint property and it was stated that the property was partitioned by the sons of Ram Bhagat in the year 1991.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which was also dismissed by judgment and decree. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 

It was the case of the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the partition did not reflect in the jamabandies, hence once the partition was not effected, permitting the co-sharers to raise construction to the detriment of the plaintiff-appellant would harm the interest of the plaintiff-appellant, hence the suit ought to have been decreed.

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that for reasons best known to the plaintiff-appellant, he did not produce on the record the latest jamabandies at the time of filing of the suit.

"The jamabandi produced by him is for the year 1989-1990 while the suit was filed by him on 19.01.2007", the Court observed while adding that a plaintiff has to stand on their own legs, he has to prove his own case by adducing oral and/or documentary evidence and prove the same. 

Further, the Bench also observed that the plaintiff-appellant, in his cross-examination admitted that walls were constructed over separate portions of the suit property and that the same were constructed in the year 2002. 

Hence, the Court observed that both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that all the parties were in their respective exclusive shares by way of mutual settlement. 

"Further, even a co-sharer cannot be injuncted from selling his share of the property even though the property is sold by way of specific khasra numbers and the same would tantamount to alienation only of a share by the co-sharer", the Bench observed. 

The appeal was thus dismissed.