JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. Civil suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 29.03.2008. Learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2009 allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the instant appeal has been preferred by the defendant. 2. Parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the learned trial Court. 2(i). Suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) praying for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from changing the nature and raising construction over the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 8 min, Khatauni Nos. 14 min, 15 min, Khasra Nos. 1955, 1952, 1953 as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 situated in village Mohal Kotla Kalan, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. till final partition. In the alternative a decree for mandatory injunction by way of demolition of superstructure if any raised forcibly by the defendants during the pendency of the suit was also prayed for. 2(ii). It was pleaded in the plaint that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and Smt. Sureshtha Devi wife of Jasbir Singh. The original defendants were father and son. They were forcibly raising construction over the suit land by covering the best and valuable piece of suit land without there being regular partition of the land. 2(iii). In their written statement, the defendants admitted that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1952, 1953 and 1955 measuring 0-13-90 hectares was jointly owned by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and Smt. Sureshtha Devi. The defence put-forth was that defendant No. 1 Santokh Singh and Hoshiar Singh (father of the plaintiff) were real brothers and co-owned the suit land to the extent of half share each. Sh. Hoshiar Singh raised construction over Khasra No. 1952 with the consent of the defendant. Sh. Hoshiar Singh was in exclusive possession of Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953. During his life time, Sh. Hoshiar Singh executed a registered Will dated 31.01.2002, whereunder the house raised by him over Khasra No. 1952 was given to his daughter-in-law Smt. Sureshtha Devi and remaining part of Khasra No. 1952 and Khasra No. 1953 were bequeathed in favour of plaintiff and Smt. Sureshtha Devi in equal shares. 1952 and 1953. During his life time, Sh. Hoshiar Singh executed a registered Will dated 31.01.2002, whereunder the house raised by him over Khasra No. 1952 was given to his daughter-in-law Smt. Sureshtha Devi and remaining part of Khasra No. 1952 and Khasra No. 1953 were bequeathed in favour of plaintiff and Smt. Sureshtha Devi in equal shares. This Will was accepted by the legal heirs of Sh. Hoshiar Singh including the plaintiff and Smt. Sureshtha Devi. Mutation No. 691 was sanctioned to this effect. Khasra No. 1955 was in exclusive possession of deceased defendant No. 1 Sh. Santokh Singh (father of present appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3). Share of defendants over the suit land comes to 0-06-52 sq. mtrs, whereas defendants intended to raise construction only over 0-00-84 sq. mtrs of land comprised in Khasra No. 1955 as per site plan attached with the written statement. Thus it was pleaded that co-owners were in separate possession over the suit land according to their mutual adjustment, which arrangement had been accepted by all of them. Father of the plaintiff was in possession of Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953. He had already raised construction over parts of Khasra No. 1952. Defendants were also entitled to raise construction over parts of the Khasra No. 1955, which was in their exclusive possession. 2(iv). Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After appreciating the pleadings, evidence and the contentions advanced by the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the civil suit on 29.03.2008 holding that the suit land was though in joint ownership of the parties but the possession thereof had been separated on the spot by way of mutual agreement. It was further held that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of injunction as he had concealed material facts from the Court that his father Hoshiar Singh was in separate possession of Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953, and had already raised construction over part of Khasra No. 1952. Further that the suit land had been separated on the spot between plaintiff's father Sh. Hoshiar Singh and original defendant No. 1 Sh. Santokh Singh. 2(v). Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2008 passed by the learned trial Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2009 allowed the appeal. Further that the suit land had been separated on the spot between plaintiff's father Sh. Hoshiar Singh and original defendant No. 1 Sh. Santokh Singh. 2(v). Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2008 passed by the learned trial Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2009 allowed the appeal. It was held that separate possession does not amount to possession by way of mutual partition. Separate possession at best can be used for the purpose of utilization of land between the parties. As per law, till partition takes place, no co-owner can claim to be in exclusive possession. A co-sharer even in exclusive possession cannot be permitted to raise construction on the land in his possession till partition takes place by metes and bounds. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred the instant regular second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned First Appellate Court did not appreciate the fact that out of three khasra numbers comprised in the suit land, the defendants were in separate possession over Khasra No. 1955. The other two Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953 were in possession of the plaintiff and his sister-in-law Smt. Sureshtha Devi and prior to them, these two numbers were in possession of Sh. Hoshiar Singh. Sh. Hoshiar Singh and Sh. Santokh Singh (original defendant No. 1) were real brothers and co-owners of the suit land to the extent of half share each. By way of a family arrangement, these three khasra numbers had been divided between them. Sh. Hoshiar Singh had raised construction over part of Khasra No. 1952 in form of a house. Under a Will executed by him, he bequeathed the house raised by him over Khasra No. 1952 in favour of his daughter-in-law Smt. Sureshtha Devi and remaining portion of Khasra No. 1952 and Khasra No. 1953 were bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff and Smt. Sureshtha Devi in equal shares. On the basis of this Will, mutation had already been attested. Original defendant No. 1 Sh. Santokh Singh was also in separate and exclusive possession of Khasra No. 1955. Defendants wanted to raise construction only over parts of this khasra number. Separate possession of the parties over the suit land was reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 Ext. D-1. Original defendant No. 1 Sh. Santokh Singh was also in separate and exclusive possession of Khasra No. 1955. Defendants wanted to raise construction only over parts of this khasra number. Separate possession of the parties over the suit land was reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 Ext. D-1. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled for the relief of injunction. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the defendants by raising construction over parts of the suit land wanted to grab the best portion out of the suit land adjoining to the road side. Defendants were only the co-owners over the suit land. They could not raise construction over any part of the suit land till the same was partitioned by metes and bounds. 4. This second appeal was admitted on 17.07.2009 on following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the land can be held to be joint in absence of any documentary evidence and particularly admission of the plaintiff as P.W. 2 and admission of the P.W. 3 that the land was partitioned among the parties? 2. Whether the judgment is result of misreading of oral as well documentary evidence i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 and Ex. P1 and Ex. P2?" For determination of these questions, following observations are pertinent:- 4(i). From the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, what comes out is that the suit land was comprised in three khasra numbers i.e. 1952, 1953 and 1955. Total area of the suit land is 0-13-90 hectares. 4(ii) Plaintiff while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 admitted that the suit land was initially owned by his predecessor Sh. Hoshiar Singh alongwith original defendant No. 1 Sh. Santokh Singh to the extent of half share each. Sh. Santokh Singh and Sh. Hoshiar Singh were real brothers. That the parties had mutually agreed for the separate possession of three khasra numbers between themselves. With their mutual consent, Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953 came in exclusive possession of Sh. Hoshiar Singh, whereas Khasra No. 1955 came in exclusive possession of Sh. Santokh Singh. Sh. Hoshiar Singh raised construction over part of Khasra No. 1952 with the consent of original defendant No. 1 i.e. Sh. Santokh Singh. Sh. With their mutual consent, Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953 came in exclusive possession of Sh. Hoshiar Singh, whereas Khasra No. 1955 came in exclusive possession of Sh. Santokh Singh. Sh. Hoshiar Singh raised construction over part of Khasra No. 1952 with the consent of original defendant No. 1 i.e. Sh. Santokh Singh. Sh. Hoshiar Singh executed a Will bequeathing the house raised by him over Khasra No. 1952 in favour of his daughter-in-law Smt. Sureshtha Devi w/o. Sh. Jasbir Singh (plaintiff's brother) and remaining portion of Khasra No. 1952 and entire Khasra No. 1953 in favour of plaintiff-Sh. Rai Singh and Smt. Sureshtha Devi. The separate possession over these numbers were thereafter maintained by the parties. 4(iii) Separate possession over these three khasra numbers as aforesaid has also been reflected in jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 Ext. D-1. 4(iv) A spot map produced by the defendant showing separate possession of parties over the suit land as described above, has been admitted by the plaintiff. This spot map is proved by plaintiff's witness Piare Lal Bains (PW-1). As per the map, Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953 were in possession of plaintiff Rai Singh and his sister-in-law Smt. Sureshtha Devi. A PWD road divides Khasra Nos. 1952. Khasra No. 1955 has been shown in exclusive possession of defendant. PWD road crosses khasra number 1955 as well. Persons in settled joint possession of immovable property are supposed to respect the right to joint possession of each other in the same fashion and manner as the owners in joint possession. A person in joint possession of immovable property cannot change the nature of suit property unless the property is partitioned or the other persons in joint possession consent to such change in the nature of the property (Re: 2007 (1) Latest HLJ (H.P.) 413, titled Shiv Chand v. Manghru and others). (2010) 3 Shim. LC 205, titled Payar Singh v. Narayan Dass and others, was a case where stand of the respondents was that they were in separate possession of land in family partition over which they were raising construction. They also stated that petitioner had also constructed his house over the land in his possession. Finding force in contentions of the respondents, following was observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment:- "12. The respondents in the written statement have specifically pleaded that parties are in separate possession under family arrangement. They also stated that petitioner had also constructed his house over the land in his possession. Finding force in contentions of the respondents, following was observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment:- "12. The respondents in the written statement have specifically pleaded that parties are in separate possession under family arrangement. The petitioner has also constructed his house on the joint land. It is not the stand of the petitioner that respondents are raising construction on an area which is more than their share. The case of the respondents is that petitioner has constructed his house on a better portion of the land. The under construction house of the respondents is away from the National Highway 21 whereas the house of the petitioner abuts N.H. 21. The respondents have placed on record on the file of revision photographs of under construction house of the respondents. The photographs indicate sufficient gap between the already constructed house of petitioner and under construction house of the respondents over which even slab has been placed. It is the case of the respondents in written statement that they are in separate possession of the land in family arrangement. This fact has not been denied by filing replication. The respondents are claiming possession over the suit land under family arrangement i.e. with the consent of the petitioner over which they are raising construction. The respondents have thus established prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss in their favour. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. In revision the scope is limited as held in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase ad Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76 . The suit is for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The rights of the parties will be decided in the suit. It has not been established that the view taken by the learned District Judge does not emerge from the material on record." Various judgments on the inter se rights and liabilities of co-sharers were considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 2016 (1) Shim. LC 207, titled Ashok Kapoor Vs. Murtu Devi, wherein following principles were culled out:- "41. LC 207, titled Ashok Kapoor Vs. Murtu Devi, wherein following principles were culled out:- "41. The exposition of law as enunciated in the various judgments referred above including those of this High Court, insofar as the rights and liabilities of the co-owners is concerned, gives rise to the following propositions:- 1. A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it. 2. Possession of joint property by one co-owner is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession. 3. A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all. 4. The above rule admits of an exception when there is ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession of a co-owner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of either as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and denies that of the other. 5. Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment. 6. Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners. 7. Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented by the other co-owners, it is not open to any body to dispute 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 liable to be restored to its original condition. 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 liable to be restored to its original condition. It is not necessary in such a case to show that special damage has been suffered." 4(v) No doubt the possession of one co-owner is to be construed as possession of the other co-owners, however, facts in the instant case are different. Co-owners were in settled separate possession of the joint property by mutual understanding. Their separate possession of the joint property (suit land) was with each other's consent. Hoshiar Singh-father of the plaintiff had raised construction over part of the suit property which was in his exclusive possession in terms of the mutual arrangement. Hoshiar Singh had also executed a Will in respect of Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953, which were in his exclusive possession out of the suit property consisting of three khasra numbers in all. Mutation on the basis of this Will, had also been attested. It is thus apparent that parties were in settled possession of separate parcels of the suit land. Khasra No. 1952 and 1953 were in possession of Hoshiar Singh-father of plaintiff. Hoshiar Singh raised construction in form of a house over Khasra No. 1952 under a registered Will. He bequeathed this part of Khasra No. 1952 to his daughter-in-law Smt. Sureshtha Devi and remaining portion of Khasra Nos. 1952 & 1953 in favour of plaintiff and Smt. Sureshtha Devi in equal shares. Plaintiff/co-sharer had already raised construction over a portion of joint land in his exclusive possession. Under the circumstances and in view of the evidence on record, the plaintiff cannot restrain the other co-owners (defendants) from raising construction over portion of joint land (Khasra No. 1955) in their exclusive possession in terms of their shares more so when such settled possession is recorded in the revenue record and accepted by the parties. Questions of law are, therefore, answered as under:- Suit land is recorded in joint ownership of parties, however, with consent of all joint owners, parties were in settled possession over different portions of suit land. Khasra Nos. Questions of law are, therefore, answered as under:- Suit land is recorded in joint ownership of parties, however, with consent of all joint owners, parties were in settled possession over different portions of suit land. Khasra Nos. 1952 and 1953 were with plaintiff's father Hoshiar Singh and Khasra No. 1955 was with original defendant No. 1-Santokh Singh. The revenue record-jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 (Ext. D-1) showed separate possession of parties over the suit land. The spot map (Ext. PW1/A) admitted by plaintiff and proved by his witness (PW-1) also proves settled separate possession of parties over the suit land. Hoshiar Singh had not only raised construction over portions of Khasra No. 1952 but under a registered Will (Mark-X) had bequeathed these two khasra numbers (1952 & 1953) in favour of his two successors including the plaintiff. Statements of plaintiff and his witnesses admit the defence set up by the defendants. The jamabandis at Ext. P1 and P2 do not pertain to suit land, therefore, are not relevant. In the facts of the case, plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief of injunction. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is accepted. The judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Fast Track Court Una dated 16.05.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 32/08 is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 29.03.2008 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 242/2005 is upheld. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is dismissed.