Case: RSA-5381/2019

Case Title: Tarsem Singh (deceased) through his LR versus Major Singh (deceased) through his LRs & Others

In the present case (Section 34 r/w Section 38, Specific Relief Act, 1936), it was averred that the brothers of the plaintiff-appellant are residing in England and the plaintiff-appellant was cultivating their share in the suit land. It was further the case that the plaintiff-appellant and his brothers were in exclusive possession of the suit land for the last more than 30 years as co-sharers but the suit land along with other land was joint of the owners as recorded in the jamabandi. The plaintiff alleged that he, along with his brothers were in exclusive possession as co-sharers of the suit land and the defendants threatened him to interfere in his lawful, peaceful and exclusive possession of the said land, illegally and forcibly, to which they had no right except in due course of law till the partition of the suit land and as such the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to the injunction as prayed for.

The defendants averred that the plaintiff-appellant, his brothers, the defendant/respondents and their brothers along with other co-sharers were co-owners of the suit land. It was further averred that the defendants had constructed a house in one of the parts of the land with passage to their house through the said land and were enjoying the same without any sort of obstruction for last more than 20 years as a matter of right and by way of easement of necessity as there was no other passage to their residential houses.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that both the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court concurrently found that the suit land is joint. Once the suit land is not partitioned and the parties to the suit are co-sharers and co-owners, each and every co-sharer is in possession of every inch of land.

The court noted that a joint owner cannot prevent by injunction the usage of a portion of the joint property by another co-owner unless this amounts to wastage or destruction or injury to the other co-owners. Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband-like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners. The plaintiff-appellant failed to establish that he was in exclusive possession of the suit land.

Accordingly, the appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.

Read more blogs at www.advocatetanwar.com

Disclaimer

The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.