RSA No.4166 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on May 14,2010. Raja Ram and others --Appellants vs. Harphool and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.P.Singh,Advocate,for the appellants Mr.J.V.Yadav,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This appeal has been filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 against judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been decreed and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have been restrained from raising any sort of construction over any specific portion of khasra No.242 (1-14) till the same is partitioned and has fallen to the share of defendant Nos.1 to 6 exclusively. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he and proforma defendant Nos. 7 to 11 are successors of Umrao son of Shiv Sahai, whereas defendants are successor of Indraj Singh. It is alleged that the parties to the suit were owners in joint possession of land measuring 6 kanals 3 marlas which was never partitioned, but defendant Nos. 1 to 6 being strong headed and quarrelsome persons threatened to raise construction over a specific portion of disputed khasra No.242 (1-14) more than their shares. Thus, RSA No.4166 of 2006 (O&M) 2 prayed was made for permanent injunction to restrain defendant Nos. 1 to 6 from raising any sort of construction over the property in question. In reply, the defendants had alleged that the suit land has already been partitioned 30 years back and as the parties are in their separate possession of specific portions on which they have right to raise construction, they cannot be restrained by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 19.9.2002. After taking into consideration both oral as well as documentary evidence available on file, both the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It was held that dispute is with regard to Khasra No.242 (1-14) and there was no dispute regarding other portion of land where as per jamabandi for the year 1995-96( Ex.PW-1/A), parties to the dispute are recorded to be as joint owners in possession of khasra No. 241 (3-13) and 242 (1-14). Therefore, it was held that only defence of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 was that they are in exclusive possession of specific portion due to private partition which was effected between the parties 30 years ago, but the said private partition could not be proved as a result of which, the defendants failed to prove their exclusive possession over Khasra No.242 (1-14). In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that possession of the appellants is proved on the land in dispute as some firewood etc.belonging to them is lying thereon, but he has miserably failed to prove that the land has already been partitioned as alleged in their defence. Thus, unless and until, it is proved that the land is partitioned and the defendants have entered into exclusive possession of land which has already fallen to their shares due to private partition even if the same is not RSA No.4166 of 2006 (O&M) 3 effected in the revenue record, the defendants have no case and as such, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. No other point has been urged before me by learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the above, I do not find any question of law muchless substantial involved in this appeal as envisaged under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,CPC) and hence this appeal is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs. May14,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge