Co-sharer Cannot Carve Out Exclusive Passage in Joint Land: P&H High Court Modifies Decree

Case Name: Ram Singh & Ors. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 17 March 2026

Citation: RSA-109-2000

Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that no co-sharer can earmark or claim exclusive rights over a specific portion of joint and unpartitioned property. A co-sharer is entitled to transfer only his undivided share, and any arrangement creating exclusive passage rights is not binding on other co-sharers unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds.

Summary: The dispute pertained to land forming part of a joint holding, where the plaintiffs claimed that a specific portion had been left as a passage to access plots purchased by them through sale deeds executed by some of the co-sharers. They sought a declaration that the said land constituted a passage and challenged a subsequent sale deed executed in favour of one of the co-sharers.

The trial Court and the first appellate Court decreed the suit, holding that the disputed land was indeed a passage and declared the impugned sale deed to be null and void.

Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the land remained joint and unpartitioned, and therefore no specific portion could have been earmarked as a passage. It was argued that the plaintiffs, being transferees of co-sharers, only stepped into their shoes and could not claim exclusive rights over any specific portion of the joint property.

The High Court noted that it was an admitted position that the land was joint and unpartitioned and that the appellant was a co-sharer who was neither a party to the sale deeds nor to any alleged compromise recognizing the passage. The Court reiterated the settled principle that a co-sharer can transfer only his undivided share and cannot carve out or bind other co-sharers to any specific arrangement regarding a defined portion of land.

It was held that the Courts below erred in declaring a specific portion of joint land as a passage and in setting aside the sale deed executed in favour of a co-sharer. However, the Court also recognized that the plaintiffs had purchased land through valid sale deeds and were in possession, and that access to their plots had been used in a particular manner over time.

Balancing equities, the Court held that while exclusive rights over the passage cannot be granted, the existing usage of the land as access cannot be abruptly disturbed. It emphasized that disputes regarding specific portions of joint land are to be resolved through partition proceedings.

Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgments of the Courts below. The declaration of the disputed land as an exclusive passage and the invalidation of the sale deed were set aside. However, the existing use of the land for access to the plaintiffs’ plots was protected until partition, and the parties were granted liberty to seek partition of the joint property.