P&H HC Upholds Injunction Protecting Co-Sharer’s Demarcated Exclusive Possession Pending Partition

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, asserting ownership and possession of the suit land and alleging that he had sown a crop and installed irrigation equipment there.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed that decision and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession except in due course of law.

Defendant No. 1 appealed, arguing that the plaintiff had not established exclusive possession and that the First Appellate Court had misappreciated the evidence, including a compromise and an application before the SDM.

A co-sharer in settled, exclusive possession of a specific portion of joint property is entitled to protect that possession from forcible dispossession, except in due course of law.

A co-sharer disputing the existing arrangement of possession should seek partition rather than use force; the protection remains subject to the rights of other co-sharers and the outcome of partition proceedings.

The Court relied on the demarcation report dated 10 October 2015, which supported the plaintiff’s exclusive possession of the suit land.

The appellant had not shown that the plaintiff forcibly obtained possession during the proceedings or that the possession recorded in the report had subsequently changed.

The Court therefore found that the plaintiff could protect his settled possession against forcible interference and that the First Appellate Court had committed no material error in reversing the Trial Court.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.