RSA No. 4320 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2197-C of 2010 and RSA No. 4320 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 24 , 2010 Ashok ...... Appellant Versus Suresh Chand and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.M.S.Tewatia, 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. CM No. 2197-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed. Appeal is restored t its original number. With the consent of learned counsel main appeal is taken up for hearing. RSA No. 4320 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for injunction restraining the appellant from using the property in dispute as passage. Both the courts found that in partition proceedings before the revenue authorities the matter had been compromised and the Naksha Be and Sanad Taksim had been prepared on the basis of the said compromise. Both the courts further found that the allegations of fraud with regard to the said compromise were not proved by the appellant. RSA No. 4320 of 2008 2 The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether in a partition petition without preparing sanad taksim it can be said that partition has been completed? ii)Whether on the basis of a Rapart roznamcha during the pendency of the partition petition it can be held that parties have mutually partitioned the land? iii)Whether a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable against a co-sharer? iv)Whether a suit for permanent injunction can be decreed without any finding with regard to physical possession? v) Whether the finding of both the learned Courts below is not perverse? Questions No. (i), (ii) and (v) are pure questions of fact. Both the Courts found that the partition had been accepted on the basis of compromise which was duly proved. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. As regards questions No.(iii) and (iv) the same do not arise in view of the fact that the property stands partitioned. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 24 , 2010 sunita