Can One Owner Lease Out Property that is Jointly Owned? - Punjab and Haryana HC Answers

Can One Owner Lease Out Property that is Jointly Owned? The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the sanctity of co-sharers' rights in unpartitioned holdings, ruling that exclusive possession of specific parcels cannot be handed over to third parties for infrastructure projects without a verified partition.  

In a revision petition challenging the vacation of a temporary injunction, Justice Deepak Gupta scrutinized the legality of leasing out specific portions of a joint holding for a solar energy project. The petitioner, claiming interest through a 2021 transfer deed, sought to restrain the conversion of agricultural land and damage to irrigation infrastructure by a power company. 

Proof of Property Title 

The High Court found that the first appellate court had erred by ignoring a registered transfer deed that was already part of the record. While the trial court had granted an injunction based on the joint nature of the land, the appellate court had reversed it on the erroneous factual premise that the petitioner failed to produce her title documents. Justice Gupta observed that such a failure to acknowledge existing evidence vitiated the appellate findings. 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court highlighted that "The finding of the learned appellate Court that the petitioner had not produced the transfer deed is of considerable implication, because the alleged non-production of that document was made a specific basis for holding that no prima facie case existed in her favour. Once the document is found to be available on the record, the factual foundation of that part of the appellate Court's reasoning disappears... The revenue entries may not, by themselves, be conclusive proof of title, but they are certainly relevant in determining whether the petitioner has raised a bona fide and substantial question requiring adjudication." 

The Bench accordingly restrained the respondents from raising construction of proposed solar panel plant over disputed land during pendency of the suit. The Court restricted parties from changing its nature and damaging or demolishing the pipeline, if any, existing underneath the suit property. 

Background 

The dispute originated when the petitioner, who acquired a share in a 231-kanal holding via a transfer deed in 2021, challenged a lease deed executed by other co-sharers in favor of CMES Power 2 Limited. The defendants contended that a private family settlement in 2014 had already partitioned the land, granting them exclusive possession of the 85 kanals leased for the solar project. 

The question pertained to "Can One Owner Lease Out Property that is Jointly Owned?" The trial court initially granted a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relying on precedents like Bhoop Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others and Ranjit Singh and another v. Gram Sabha, Jalalpur to uphold the presumption of correctness in revenue records. The defendants appealed, and the Additional District Judge set aside the injunction, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court. The Punajb and Haryana High Court ultimately set aside the appellate order, noting that the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not preclude interim protection where proprietary rights are at stake. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: CR-7268-2025 

Case Title: Suman Versus CMES Power 2 Limited and others 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate 

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Kundu, Advocate 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 20740