LawMirror.com

Results of injunction against co sharer exclusive possession

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 1-10 of 50 Results

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2025
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Interim injunction - Co-sharers - Co-owner in exclusive possession of a specific portion of joint land is entitled to seek protection against interference by other co-sharers and that no co-sharer has right to alter or change the nature of portion under exclusive possession of another - Application rightly allowed...........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2025
Details

Co-sharer -- Injunction - Co-sharer in physical possession of a specific portion of joint land, whose possession is admitted, cannot be restrained from raising construction thereupon - However, any construction raised by the respondents over their exclusive portion, shall remain subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings...........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2025
Details

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Injunction - Co-sharers - Parties i.e plaintiffs and defendant are co-sharers - In the absence of any evidence led by plaintiff that she was in exclusive possession of suit land and that there had been a partition, suit for injunction qua a co-sharer is not maintainable...........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2025
Details

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Permanent injunction - Co-sharers - In the absence of evidence that plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property and there had been a partition, suit for permanent injunction against co-sharer is not maintainable - The only remedy for plaintiff would be to seek partition of suit land...........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2025
Details

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Permanent injunction - Plaintiff had been unable to prove his exclusive possession over suit property - Another co-sharer had earlier filed a similar suit against defendant which was withdrawn which fact was not disclosed by plaintiff - Apart from oral testimonies, plaintiff could not establish from any cogent documentary evidence..........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2024
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Temporary injunction - Co-sharers - Defendant being a vendee under a co-sharer can only claim possession by seeking partition of joint land - Till the defendant seeks separate possession, plaintiffs have a right to protect their possession - Defendant is not in a position to demonstrate that his vendor was in exclusive..........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2024
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Temporary injunction - Co-sharers - Plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners in possession over suit property and nobody has been shown to be in exclusive possession over suit land - Possession of one co-sharer is possession of all in the eyes of law - So even, if defendants raise construction over some portion, it will..........

JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2022
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Temporary injunction - Restraining co-sharer from raising construction - Co-sharer, who is in exclusive possession of a joint holding, cannot be restrained from raising construction on that portion of the joint holding of which he is in exclusive possession - Order allowing defendant to raise construction subject to..........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2022
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Temporary injunction - Co-sharers - Co-sharer who is in exclusive possession of separate parcel of land can definitely seek injunction against other co-sharers, who are not in possession of requisite land - Application rightly allowed...........

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2021
Details

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Permanent injunction - Co-owners - Co-owners were in settled separate possession of joint property by mutual understanding - Their separate possession of joint property was with each other's consent - Plaintiff/co-sharer had already raised construction over a portion of joint land in his exclusive possession - He thus, cannot..........

Showing : 1-10 of 50 Results