Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction Protecting Possession After Family Partition, Dismisses Appeal of Co-Sharer Claim

Case Name: Mohinder Singh v. Kulwant Singh
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: RSA-4683-2000
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging concurrent decrees of injunction in favour of the plaintiff, holding that once partition of family property is proved, possession of each share becomes exclusive, and a co-sharer who does not plead joint ownership cannot claim right of interference. Justice Deepak Gupta observed that the appellant’s defence was inconsistent, as he claimed ownership over only a limited portion while attributing the rest to his sister, and failed to establish joint possession. The Court reaffirmed that absence of appearance in the witness box by a defendant allows an adverse inference against him under settled law.

Summary: The dispute concerned a 32 marla parcel of land delineated as ‘ABCD’ in the site plan. The plaintiff, Kulwant Singh, sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, Mohinder Singh, from interfering in his possession. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s ownership and claimed that he possessed 7 marlas adjoining the house of Mohan Singh, while the remaining 25 marlas belonged to his sister, Naranjan Kaur, who had filed a separate suit.

The Trial Court, after evaluating evidence, found that the plaintiff was in possession and that in an injunction suit, ownership need not be adjudicated. The First Appellate Court upheld this finding, noting that the defendant’s witnesses themselves admitted the prior family partition and that Naranjan Kaur, married in 1947, resided in another village, proving she was not in possession. It also noted that the defendant did not appear in the witness box, weakening his case.

Justice Deepak Gupta held that the concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. Since the defendant neither pleaded joint ownership nor proved exclusive possession of any specific portion, he was not entitled to claim co-sharer rights or resist injunction. The Court found no perversity in the reasoning of the courts below.

Decision: The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal as devoid of merit.