The majority of the co-owners cannot limit the right of another co-owner, but if such a decision is made and the dispute goes to court, the decision of the court will not supersede the decision of the majority, because it will be a possible claim for infringement of the owner's right. And the court, after recognizing the right of the limited co-owner, will order the termination of the groundless action (decision), which prevents him from exercising his powers to the extent of the right he owns.
The court, in case of a claim, cannot go beyond the competence of the majority. He cannot prescribe, for example, the performance of dispositional actions - to sell the common property. If, on the other hand, the decision of the majority is taken outside its competence, it will be null and void in law. Anyone can invoke this nullity. If the dispute reaches the court, he will only ascertain it.
The court does not decide a legal dispute, and its decision only replaces the missing or harmful decision of the co-owners. Here no dispute about ownership is decided, which is why this proceeding is defined not as a dispute and claim, but as a judicial administration. Therefore, if the factual situation changes, the issue can be re-settled, e.g. a new building was built in the place of the co-owners.