RSA No. 4181 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4181 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 18, 2010 Mohinder Singh ...... Appellant Versus Narinder Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.P.N.Makani, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the respondents (his brothers) from interfering in his exclusive possession over the property in dispute. Both the Courts have found that the appellant has not been able to prove his exclusive possession to the extent that he can seek injunction against co-sharers. Learned counsel has argued that the electricity bill, water bill and the telephone bill of the property in dispute are all in the name of the appellant and, therefore, the finding of the Courts below is vitiated. The following substantial questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the findings recorded by the courts below vis-a-vis RSA No. 4181 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the ownership of a built up house in a suit for permanent injunction is without jurisdiction? ii)Whether mere mention of the word owner-in-possession in a suit for permanent injunction without seeking the relief of declaration is surplusage? iii)Whether where the courts below comet a finding that the appellant-plaintiff is in possession of the property still incidental finding could be recorded vis-a-vis the ownership of the property, especially when there is no issue regarding ownership, nor any declaration regarding the same was sought for? iv)Whether the findings recorded by the courts below are against the provisions of the statute and the law laid down thereunder? Learned counsel has also fairly stated that a suit for partition is already pending between the brothers. Learned counsel has, however, argued that finding regarding ownership could not have been recorded in this present suit for permanent injunction. In my opinion this argument cannot be accepted. The appellant had claimed that he was owner in possession. In written statement the respondents had clearly stated that they were co-owners of the property in dispute and had mentioned all relevant details. In this view of the matter it would be necessary for the court to give some prima facie finding on that question. The learned court has correctly appreciated the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddi (dead) by LRs and others reported as 2008(3) Civil Court Cases (SC) 294. Apart from this the learned Court has also found that in the replication the appellant had admitted that he was co-owner with the respondent. In the circumstances the questions proposed are decided against the appellant. RSA No. 4181 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 18, 2010 sunita