An issue similar to this arose in another case. The case was Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs Daya Ram Nagina Ram And Ors. on 12 May, 1961.
The facts of this case was that one of the co-owners raised a building over a joint property inspite of other co-owner opposing it. The aggrieved co-owner approached the court to order demolition of such a structure. After hearing both the sides and their witness and examining the evidences, the court presented some of the important points related to the court-
1) A co-owner has interest in the entire property if the partition of the property is not specified. This means he can claim his ownership over the entire portion of the property.
2) Even if one of the co-owner occupies a larger portion or has been residing in the property, this does not grant him the power to supersede the onwership of the co-owner.
3) One of the co-onwer does not have a right to distrub the arrangements of the property without the consent of the other co-owner unless a suit for partition of the property has been filed.
4) Where a portion of the joint property is by common consent reserved for a common purpose, any of them cannot make any changes unless both consent to that change.
In the given case, the other party (uncle) can approach the court and the court may grant a stay order on the construction activity undertaken by the party as in a joint property of which no partition has been done, the consent of both the co-owners is necessary for making any changes in the property as the other party also has equal ownership title as that of the party.