Regular Second Appeal No.2063 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2063 of 2005 Date of Decision: July 24, 2009 Balbir Singh ...........Appellant Versus Iqbal Kaur and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sumeet Mahajan,Senior Advocate with Mr.Sham Lal, Advocate for respondent No.1 None for respondent No. 3 to 5. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff. The said suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Khanna vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2000. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal and the same was accepted, setting aside the judgment and decree under appeal, by the District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 3 and 4 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts giving rise to this suit are that Hardial Singh son of Bara Singh resident of village Malak Pur Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, was owner in possession of 0 kanal 3 marlas of land mentioned in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiff purchased the property in dispute from Regular Second Appeal No.2063 of 2005 2 said Hardial Singh for consideration of Rs.45,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 27.5.1992 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the property in dispute. The plaintiff a few days ago started raising construction over the site in dispute, but the defendants, who have no right or title in the property, started interfering in it. It is further pleaded that the defendants are sourceful persons and they started threatening the plaintiff that they will forcibly dispossess him from the property in dispute with dint of force or the help of police to which they have no right. There is imminent and immediate danger to the legal and valid title in the property in suit, hence this suit. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed with costs. 4. In obedience to the summons issued by the Court, defendants No.1 and 2 put in their appearance and filed joint written statement, inter-alia, pleading in preliminary objections that the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court. The real facts are that Pal Singh, Mohinder Singh, Joginder Singh and Rajinder Singh were joint owners in possession of the land situated at village Bulepur Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana and they partitioned their land vide memorandum of partition dated 6.6.1991; that by way of this partition the suit property fell to the share of Mohinder Singh and the plaintiff have got no right, title or interest in the same; that on the basis of said memorandum of partition the then parties got entered the mutation; that since the time of partition the parties are in exclusive possession of the land fallen to their shares; that the plaintiff has deliberately concealed Regular Second Appeal No.2063 of 2005 3 all the material facts from this Court, as such he is not entitled for the discretionary relief of injunction; that in the year 1981 there was a scheme of acquisition of the land situated in village Bulepur and under the fear and with a view to show the high price of the land Rajinder Singh executed a sale deed in favour of Hardial Singh with respect to the land measuring 0 kanal 3 marlas comprised in rectangle No. 18 killa No. 12/2, but the possession was not transferred to the vendee and no consideration was paid to the vendor, because the sale deed was only a paper transaction; that since Hardial Singh was not the owner of the suit property, so he was not competent to further alienate the same; that the sale deed dated 27.5.1992 allegedly executed in favour of the plaintiff by Hardial Singh does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff never came into possession over the suit property; that the alleged sale deed is also without consideration and is a paper transaction; that the answering defendants are owners in possession of the suit property. On merits, the averments made in the plaint, were denied and it was specifically pleaded by the appellants that the suit land was owned and possessed earlier by Mohinder Singh their predecessor in interest and after his death the appellants were owners in possession of the same. In the last it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed with costs." On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- Regular Second Appeal No.2063 of 2005 4 “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 3. Relief" After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff has sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession. However, as per the revenue record i.e. copy of jamabandi for the year 1988-89 (Exhibit P3) and copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79 (Exhibit P4). Pal Singh, Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh were owner to the extent of 39 shares, whereas, Rajinder Singh were owner to the extent of 10 shares and Hardial Singh was owner of 3 shares and they were all in joint possession of the land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas bearing khasra No. 18//12/2. Plaintiff purchased 3 marlas of land in dispute from Hardial Singh. Although the case of the plaintiff is that he had got exclusive possession of the plot purchased by him on the basis of sale deed executed by Hardial Singh. Since exclusive possession of Haridal Singh is not reflected in the revenue record, hence, the learned District Judge rightly held that he could not have passed on exclusive possession of the suit property. It is a settled proposition of law that every co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of the every inch of the joint property and a co-sharer can not seek injunction against the other co-sharer with regard to the property in joint possession. Regular Second Appeal No.2063 of 2005 5 No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 24, 2009 arya