Aaryan Dhar
An injunction is a form of equal remedy in the form of a court order that is used to persuade others to do or refrain from doing something. A court order excluding one of the equity claimants from doing or authorizing anyone within his power to do something that is unjust to the other party.
An injunction specifically forbids a certain type of conduct. It is a method that originated in English equity courts. It has been seen in the past where a mistake cannot be conveniently fixed by a cash pay-out, like it cannot be with most equitable remedies. When someone’s rights have been violated, injunctions are used to recover them.
Non-parties’ interests are weighed by judges before considering whether or not to grant an injunction (that is, the public interest). When deciding whether to grant an injunction and how broad it should be, courts of law pay special attention to questions of fairness and good faith.
For example, equitable defences such as laches and unclean hands may be used against injunctions.
In India, Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter as CPC) and sections 36 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act govern the law of injunctions. A temporary injunction may also be granted under Section 94(c) of CPC.
It has also been discovered that there is no bar to granting injunctions or supplementary orders for injunction execution under Section 151 of the CPC in just situations. The later provision of inherent powers expands the range of injunctions that federal courts may issue.
In this article the main topic of discussion pertains to injunction against co-owners, and whether or not it can be granted by the Indian judicial system.
Can an Injunction be granted?
Since ownership by one co-owner is treated as possession of both, a co-owner cannot seek an injunction against the other co-owner in relation to land purchased jointly. When dealing with the “Powers and Liabilities of Co-Owners,” the Hon’ble Justice PS. Narayana addressed the following rules laid down in various authorities on page 177 of his book “Rule of Injunctions”:
- A co-owner has an interest in the whole property as well as each parcel.
- Ownership of the shared property by one co-owner is called possession by everything even though all but one is currently out of possession in the eyes of the law.
- The sole ownership of a greater part or even the whole joint property does not always imply ouster since one’s occupancy is considered to be on behalf of all.
- The latter provision allows for an exemption where a co-owner is ousted by another. However, to negate the assumption of shared ownership on behalf of both, a co-possession owner’s must not only be unilateral, but also hostile to the understanding of the other, as when a co-owner freely declares his own title and rejects the other’s.
- Time period does not remove the right of a co-owner who has been out of possession of the shared estate, even in the event of ouster or abandonment.
- A co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband-like manner that is not incompatible with similar rights of other co-owners.
- If a co-owner is in possession of parcels in an arrangement consented to by the other co-owners, it is not open to anyone to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition
- The remedy of a co-owner of a share if the joint property, if 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.
- If a section of the shared property is allocated for a specific mutual reason by the co-owners’ common agreement, it cannot be diverted to an inconsistent recipient by a co-owner; if he does, he will be expelled, and the particular parcel will be returned to its original state. It is not appropriate to prove that particular harm has occurred in this situation.
Case Laws
Mohammad Baqar and others Vs Naim-un-Nisa Bibi and others.[1]
Facts
The plaintiffs argued that after their parent, Sheik Ataullah, died, they and the respondents resided as one family, that the first defendant was in possession of the estate on behalf of all of them, that the respondents administered a deed of waqf-alal-aulad for the value of their descendants on 10-8-1933, and that the said deed was a violation of their rights.
They demanded partition and delivery of the deceased Sheik Ataullah’s 14/48th share in the estate, which they declared as theirs, as well as an account of the estate’s management by the first defendant from 1892 and potential mesne income from 2-2-1934.
It was stated by the Hon’ble court that –
“The parties to the action are co-sharers, and since ownership of one co-sharer is ownership of all co-sharers under the statute, it can’t be harmful to them until the party in possession refuses their right to knowledge, followed by exclusion and ouster for the statutory term. Similarly, the legal position that a co-owner or co-sharer of a property should never assume ownership of the other share by adverse possession. This is also a well-established rule.”
Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram[2]
Facts
The appellant, Daya Ram, filed a lawsuit against the respondents, charging that the site marked Alif Be Jeem Dal in red on the plaint’s plan was jointly owned by the parties and part of their collective ownership. The parties are descendants of Nagina Ram, the plaintiff’s and defendant No. 1’s father, and the respondents’ Nos. 2, 3, and 4’s grandparents.
The parties’ agricultural land and abadi region were said to be joint in the plaint, though their agriculture and residency were treated separately for the sake of convenience. The region in question is taur, an empty plot that the petitioner says is mutually owned by the parties.
It was held by the Hon’ble High Court
That a co-owner has an interest in the whole property as well as one individual parcel; and that the co- ownership of the joint property is, in the eyes of the statute, possession of everything even though all but one is technically out of possession. Then it goes on to state that until ouster is confirmed, this situation will prevail.
Given the above facts and circumstances, including the fact that respondents 1 to 4 are subject to Mohammaden Rule, there is no question that they have a co-ownership interest. The first defendant does not have the legal authority to bind the interests of respondents 2 and 4.
The only question that needs to be resolved is whether a co-owner who is in charge is entitled to an injunction against the other co-owners. Once it is established that a co-ownership owner’s is by and on behalf of other co-owners, the other co-owner cannot seek an injunction to prevent the other co-owners from asserting their rights as co-owners.
The same was also opined in the case of Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh[3]
On the basis of judicial pronouncements on co-sharers’ rights and responsibilities, as well as their ability to lift constructions to the exclusion of others, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court drew the following conclusions:
A co-owner who is not in possession of any estate may not seek an injunction against the other co-owner who has had exclusive possession of the common estate until the individual in real property commits an act that is prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the co-owner out of possession.
Conclusion
Thus, the bottom line is that, in cases where a co-owner applies for an injunction against another co- owner, and the ownership of the other said co-owner is valid, justifiable, hostile, and complete, then on showing the same, an injunction cannot be granted on the said co-owner. This is so as the rights of both the co-owners over the said estate/property are the same and granting an injunction over the use of such an estate will result in the violation of the rights of the said co-owner.
References-
- Order XXXIX and sections 36 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act
- Page 177 of Justice P. Narayana book- “Rule of Injunctions”
- Mohammad Baqar and others And. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi and others AIR 1956 SC 548 ↑
- Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram , AIR 1961 Punj 528 ↑
- Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh AIR 2001 Punjab and Haryana 112 ↑