Co-Owner Can’t Build While Blocking Partition: P&H High Court Upholds Injunction Against Construction on Joint Land

Case Name: Dial Singh & Anr. v. Darbara Singh & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026

Citation: RSA-3618-1998

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a co-owner in possession cannot raise construction on joint property when such acts are detrimental to the interests of other co-owners, particularly where partition proceedings are obstructed. Injunction is justified in such circumstances.

Summary: The dispute arose out of a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff, asserting co-ownership in the suit land and seeking restraint against construction by the defendants without prior partition. The defendants had already raised construction up to a certain height and were attempting to continue further construction on the joint property.

The defendants claimed exclusive possession and contended that they were entitled to raise construction, relying on their long-standing possession and existing structures such as a room and cattle manger.

The trial court partly decreed the suit and restrained further construction without partition or consent of the co-owner, which was upheld by the first appellate court.

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that a co-owner in exclusive possession has the right to utilize the property, including raising construction. The respondents contended that such acts were prejudicial, especially when the defendants themselves had stalled partition proceedings.

The Court examined settled principles governing co-ownership, referring to the Division Bench judgment in Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh, which lays down that mere construction by a co-owner does not amount to ouster, but injunction can be granted where such acts are detrimental to the interests of other co-owners.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the defendants had restrained partition proceedings and simultaneously raised construction, thereby attempting to secure advantage in eventual partition. Such conduct was held to be prejudicial to the rights of other co-owners.

The Court further emphasized that grant of injunction is discretionary and both courts below had exercised such discretion judiciously based on evidence and circumstances.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the concurrent findings restraining the defendants from raising further construction over the joint property without partition or consent.