Sim ilarly, in t he case of N. Khosla vs Court

Mr. Piyush Garg, Ms. Priyanka Agrawal and Mr. Shreyas Shankar Joshi, Advocat es for t he appellant s. Mr. Am ish Tewari, Advocat e, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocat e respondent no.3. This Appeal from Order has been 2. preferred by t he appellant s assailing t he order dat ed 25.08.2025 passed by t he learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) , Alm ora in Civil Suit No. 9 of 2025, whereby t he learned Court below has rej ect ed t he appellant s’ applicat ion under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. on t he ground t hat t he appellant s have not sought relief of t he recovery of possession in t heir plaint . counsel Learned inj unct ion for m andat ory t he appellant s 3. cont ends t hat t he appellant s have inst it ut ed a seeking rest orat ion of possession over t he propert y in disput e. I t is subm it t ed t hat a fam ily set t lem ent was duly arrived at on 15.11.2002 am ongst t he co- sharers, in t erm s whereof, t he land sold by respondent nos. 1 and 2 t o respondent no. 3 fell in t he exclusive share of t he appellant s. He furt her subm it s t hat even if t he said fam ily set t lem ent t he propert y cont inues t o be j oint and unpart it ioned, and, as such, every co- sharer has a propriet ary right over every j oint holding unt il t he part it ion by m et es and bounds is effect uat ed. Consequent ly, no co- sharer can lawfully alienat e or t ransfer any specific port ion of t he j oint propert y. is not accept ed, inch of

4. Per cont ra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 subm it s t hat respondent no. 3 had earlier purchased a port ion of t he propert y in t he year 2003, t o which no obj ect ion was raised by t he appellant s. I t is fur t her cont ended sale deed dat ed t he t hat pursuant t o

21.11.2024, t he nam es of respondent no. 3 have been duly m ut at ed in t he revenue records, which lends legit im acy t o t heir possession and t it le.

5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 subm it s t hat , subsequent t o t he sale deed execut ed in t he year 2003, respondent no. 2 ( Ms. Harshit a const ruct ed a Joshi) has resident ial house over t he said propert y and t he port ion now sold lies adj acent t o t he m unicipal road, possessing a com parat ively higher m arket value. Having heard learned counsel t he 6. part ies and upon perusal of t he record, t his Court finds t hat even as per t he st and of t he respondent s, t he pr opert y in quest ion cont inues t o be j oint and unpart it ioned. I t is a set t led proposit ion of law t hat unt il a final part it ion t akes place, every co- sharer is deem ed t o be in possession of each and every part of t he j oint propert y, and none claim exclusive possession or alienat e a specific dem arcat ed port ion t hereof.

7. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of K.K. Verm a Vs. Union of I ndia, report ed in ( 1954) SCR 187, explained t he legal posit ion of a co- sharer in j oint propert y. I t held t hat every co- sharer is an owner of each and every port ion of t he undivided propert y along wit h t he ot her co- sharers, exclusive ownership over any specific part unt il part it ion t akes place. Each co- sharer has an equal right t o possession, use, and enj oym ent of t he ent ire propert y, subj ect t o sim ilar right s of t he ot hers. Possession by one co- sharer law , possession for all, unless t here is clear evidence of oust er or exclusion. is,

8. Sim ilarly, in t he case of N. Khosla Vs. Raj lakshm i, report ed in ( 2006) 3 SCC 605, Hon’ble Suprem e Court held t hat possession by one co- sharer is presum ed t o be possession on behalf of all co- sharers unless t here is clear evidence of oust er or denial of right s. Mere exclusive possession or non- part icipat ion by ot hers does not ext inguish co- ownership right s. co- sharers’ The possession is j oint and cannot becom e exclusive reaffirm ed Court t hat wit hout an explicit act of exclusion or part it ion. I n t he present case, since no 9. part it ion has been carried out bet ween t he part ies, t he alienat ion of t he specific plot by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent no. 3 cannot be said t o confer any exclusive right or possession t hereupon. The learned t rial Court , t he inj unct ion applicat ion on an erroneous prem ise t hat t he appellant s have not sought t he relief of possession. The prim ary relief being one of m andat ory possession suffices for considerat ion of int erim prot ect ion. t herefore, erred rest orat ion inj unct ion rej ect ing t he Appeal from Order 10. Consequent ly, succeeds and is hereby allowed. The im pugned order dat ed 25.08.2025 passed by t he learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) , Alm ora in Civil Suit No. 9 of 2025 is set aside.

11. The part ies are direct ed t o m aint ain st at us quo wit h respect t o nat ure, t it le, and possession of t he disput ed propert y, as it exist s on t he dat e of t his order.

12. Considering t he nat ure of t he disput e, it is request ed t hat t he learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) , Alm ora shall m ake all endeavours t o decide Civil Suit No. 9 of 2025 expedit iously, preferably wit hin a period of one year from t he dat e of product ion of a cert ified copy of t his order. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

30.10.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510 9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL