TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (5) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the plaintiffs suit for possession and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed on 28th February, 1984 by Sub Judge, Nahan, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for possession. 3. On 5th June, 1981, a suit for possession of 65 square metres of land comprised in Khasra No. 120 and 137/9/2/2/2/1 as entered at Khewat No. 56 min, Khatauni No. 78 in Misal Haqiat Bandobast of Nahan town was filed by the plaintiff, on the basis of title alleging that a valid title to this part of the property had been acquired by him through its previous owner, Kanwar Narbir Singh, by means of a registered deed of sale dated 12th May, 1981. A small hut was also constructed thereupon after spending Rs. 500/- but for the last 1 1/2 year, the defendants in h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad been duly presented before him by Vikram Singh. 5. The trial court held the plaintiff to have acquired a valid title to the property and found the defendants to be in unlawful occupation of the property having acquired no title therein. A decree for possession was passed. In appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the finding of facts recorded by the trial court. It was found that possession of defendants had originated from a valid agreement by one of the oc-owners. The defendants were found to be in actual occupation of the property prior to the execution of deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff by Kanwar Narbir Singh, the other co-owner. The defendants were held not to be in unauthorised occupation of the property. The constru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12th May, 1981, which recites delivery of possession through this deed of sale. It is neither recited that possession had been delivered earlier, nor that the actual possession was delivered. The suit was filed on 5th June, 1981, in which it was alleged that defendants had occupied the property about 1 1/2 years ago. In his statement, plaintiff Baldev Singh also admitted that as on the date of sale in his favour, defendants were in occupation. In case Kanwar Narbir Singh, a co-owner was not in actual physical and exclusive possession of the disputed property, it was not permissible for him to have conferred a valid title upon this parcel of joint land on the plaintiff. A Division Bench of Punjab High Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other co-owners, it is not open to any one to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition. (8) The remedy of a co-owner not in possession, or not in possession of a share of the joint property, is by way of a suit for partition or for actual joint possession, but not for ejectment. Same is the case where a co-owner sets up an exclusive title in himself. (9) Where a portion of the joint property is, by common consent of the co-owners, reserved for a particular common purpose, it cannot be diverted to an inconsistent user by a co-owner; if he does so, he is liable to be ejected and the particular parcel will be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransferee, in case the transfer is made, would be to get a share from out of the property to be allotted to that co-sharer in partition or to get a decree for joint possession or claim compensation from the co-sharer, as the case may be. 11. In the instant case also, when it is the defendant's case, which has also been supported by the heirs of Ramesh Kumar that defendants were permitted by them to occupy the property, possession will be deemed to be that of Ramesh Kumar, co-sharer and not that of Kanwar Narbir Singh. It has also to be held that Kanwar Narbir Singh was out of possession of the suit property as on the date of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, Kanwar Narbir Singh could not have transferred a valid title with respe....