One Owner Out Of Co-Owners Can Seek Possession Of Entire Joint Land As Agent Of Other Co-Owners: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reiterated that any one owner out of the co-owners can seek possession of the entire joint land. The bench comprising Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul further added that such co-owner can seek possession of the entire joint land on his own behalf, in his own right and as an agent of other co-owners. The court relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court...
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reiterated that any one owner out of the co-owners can seek possession of the entire joint land.
The bench comprising Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul further added that such co-owner can seek possession of the entire joint land on his own behalf, in his own right and as an agent of other co-owners.
The court relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (D) by LRs : 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 686 and Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain : 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 36 to reach to this conclusion.
The court was dealing with a revision petition for setting aside order passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Narwana whereby objections under Order 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC preferred by the petitioners were dismissed.
The Petitioner contended that since land in question was jointly owned, the respondents could not seek possession of land beyond extent of their respective shares. It was argued that in the absence of other co-owners they had no right to take possession of land beyond their share.
Since there had been noncompliance of order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC by the trial Court the decree could not be executed, it was argued.
In light of the fact that the suit land is in the joint ownership of the respondents and other co-owners and that no partition by metes and bounds has been effected, the court noted that the consent of other co-owners would be assumed to have been taken unless it is shown that despite their disagreement, a suit had still been instituted.
After considering the rival submission of the parties, the court noted that that petitioner has failed to bring to the notice any material to substantiate his claim that co-owners were not agreeable to take possession.
Moreover, the court noted the scope of interference in execution proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot go behind the decree.
Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed.
Case Title: Siriya (now deceased) through his LRs Versus Tulsi Puri (now deceased) through his LRs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 211