RSA No.4465 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4465 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:08.10.2010 Dharampal .....appellant Versus Attar Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from raising any type of construction over the property in question, which is joint between the parties and further restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff without getting it partitioned, was dismissed. As per the averments, the plaintiff and defendants are co- sharers in the joint property as detailed in the plaint and no partition has taken place, yet the defendants are bent upon to take specific killa No.236 and are adamant to raise construction over it forcibly and illegally and want to oust the plaintiff from specific killa number to which they have no right. The plaintiff made requests to defendants to get partition and then make any kind of construction but all the requests remained without any result RSA No.4465 of 2009(O & M) 2 which necessitated to file the present suit. On the other hand, defendants No.1 to 5 and 9 filed written statement refuting the stand taken by the plaintiff. Defendants specifically pleaded that plaintiff never remained in possession of killa No.236 and as a matter of fact, they had already raised construction over the aforesaid khasra No.236 and were residing by constructing their houses in that khasra number. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgement and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which was also dismissed. Admittedly, the parties to the suit are co-sharers in the suit property and no partition has taken place. The alleged family partition, as claimed by the defendant/respondents is not proved on file. It is settled law that suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable against a co-sharer and a co-sharer is not entitled to claim ownership of any specific land and a particular portion of the joint property till such time, the property remains joint. It is equally well settled that when a co-sharer is in possession of a separate parcel under an arrangement consented by the other owners, it is not open to anybody to disturb the arrangement without the consent of the other except by filing a suit for partition. Undisputedly, the appellant has failed to prove his possession over the specific portion i.e.killa No.236 and thus in view of the settled proposition of law, the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction against co-sharers was not maintainable and the right course for the appellant is to file a suit for partition. Thus, no interference is warranted by this Court in the RSA No.4465 of 2009(O & M) 3 impugned judgement and decrees. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 08.10.2010 neenu