2023 LHC 1297

Point We talked about under 1:

A co-sharer can file a suit for injury without looking for a segment.

1-Co-Ssharer Can Document a Suit Against Co-Sharer Under Segment 9 Of The Explicit Help Act.

The disputable issue associated with this case is whether a co-sharer or co-proprietor can organise a suit for the security of his privileges without looking for a parcel. The above question, interestingly, went under the steady gaze of the High Court of Pakistan on account of Ali Gohar Khan v. Sher Ayaz and others (1989 SCMR 130). Following my study of the regulation regarding the matter, I tracked down that on account of FAZAL and others v. GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others (2003 SCMR 999), the seat, including three Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Pakistan, held that a suit for an extremely durable order is viable in the interest of the co-sharer or co-proprietor. Subsequent to having a swim through the standards set down every once in a while concerning the suggestion close by, it displays that the inquiry outlined hereinabove isn't really fuzzy or sensitive. Regulation is predictable with this impact: each co-sharer or co-proprietor is proprietor of every single inch of the joint property until it is parcelled out by distributes and limits. It is likewise a frequently rehashed rule of regulation that a co-sharer or co-proprietor can't change the idea of the joint property or raise development without the assent of the other co-sharers or co-proprietors. On the off chance that a co-sharer is seized from the joint property in his or her ownership by some other co-sharer, the cure lies in recapturing his or her ownership either in a suit under segment 9 of the Particular Help Act, 1877, or via a suit for parcel.

The matter, notwithstanding, would become different in a situation when a co-sharer expects to change the idea of the joint holding or undermines the other co-sharers by stripping them of their squarely in the joint property as co-proprietors. In such a case, a co-proprietor can file a suit for a directive limiting the previous owner from changing the idea of the joint land or raising any development upon it. In the said possibility, it is for the previous to, as a matter of some importance, get the joint land parcelled. In the current case, the standards set down in FAZAL and others v. GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others supra are obviously drawn in, and as such, the preliminary court as well as the redrafting court have blundered in regulation while excusing the suit as not viable and banned by regulation.