[Co‑ownership – Nature of Rights] Each co‑owner is entitled to possession and enjoyment of every part of the joint property; exclusive possession by one does not amount to ownership unless accompanied by ouster. (Paras 13–18) [Exclusive Possession – Limits] A co‑owner may occupy or even construct on part of joint property, provided he does not deny equal rights of others; remedy of excluded co‑owner is partition, not ejectment. (Paras 19–21) [Ouster – Stringent Test] Ouster requires clear denial of title and hostile assertion to knowledge of other co‑owners; mere exclusive possession or construction is insufficient. (Paras 22–24) [Construction on Joint Property] Raising a permanent structure without consent of co‑owners changes character of property; courts may order demolition if construction is in defiance of protest or injunction. (Paras 25–27)

advocatemmmohan

[Co‑ownership – Nature of Rights] Each co‑owner is entitled to possession and enjoyment of every part of the joint property; exclusive possession by one does not amount to ownership unless accompanied by ouster. (Paras 13–18)

[Exclusive Possession – Limits] A co‑owner may occupy or even construct on part of joint property, provided he does not deny equal rights of others; remedy of excluded co‑owner is partition, not ejectment. (Paras 19–21)

[Ouster – Stringent Test] Ouster requires clear denial of title and hostile assertion to knowledge of other co‑owners; mere exclusive possession or construction is insufficient. (Paras 22–24)

[Construction on Joint Property] Raising a permanent structure without consent of co‑owners changes character of property; courts may order demolition if construction is in defiance of protest or injunction. (Paras 25–27)

[Mandatory Injunction – Discretionary Relief] Injunction is not granted as of right; courts weigh equities, considering whether injury is substantial or trivial, and whether defendant acted in defiance of law or court orders. (Paras 26–27)

[Equitable Considerations] Relief of demolition is justified where defendant persisted despite plaintiff’s protest and in violation of temporary injunction; courts will not protect wrongful acts under guise of co‑ownership. (Paras 8–9, 27)

[Partition as Proper Remedy] Where co‑owners disagree on user, remedy lies in suit for partition and settlement of accounts; exclusive possession per se does not justify ejectment. (Paras 19–21)