IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 34 of 2000 Date of decision: 07.12.2010. Vedwati & Others …Appellants. Versus Balraj & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants: Mr. Naresh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.P. Singh, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants (Sukh Dev Singh) from taking forcible possession of the suit property by ousting them from the suit land. It was also pleaded that the defendant be restrained from selling, cutting the trees and raising any construction till partition takes place. The main ground was that the land is joint and Shri Sukh Dev being a strong person was trying to raise construction and forcibly evict the co-owners of the property. 2. Sukh Dev Admitted that the land was jointly owned 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. by the parties but claimed that he is in exclusive possession of the suit land by way of private arrangement. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the land is joint and therefore Sukh Dev was restrained from taking forcible exclusive possession of the suit property and was also restrained from cutting and selling the trees from the suit land. 3. This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law on 12.7.2000:- “After hearing the learned counsel on both side, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction of the joint property owned and possessed by the parties could be entertained by the trial Court without ascertaining their rights by the parties in partition proceedings? 2. Whether the document Nakal Khatauni Ext. D-1 prepared by the public official in the discharge of his official duties could be taken into consideration by the Court below without its formal proof for collateral purpose i.e. possession of the suit land? Respondents No.1,3 to 5 are duly represented by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel. Notice to respondent No.2-Roop Chand. Needless to point out that the admission of this appeal will not in any way prejudice the rights of the parties to seek appropriate proceedings before competent authority for partition if otherwise permissible under law about the subject matter in issue and the authority shall decide those proceedings on their merits in accordance with law.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Admittedly the land was jointly owned by all the parties. The appellants failed to prove the private arrangement by which he was put in exclusive possession of the property. Even assuming that he was put in exclusive possession, there is nothing on record to show that the joint owners gave up their right in the property. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants admitted that the property is jointly owned by all the parties. Possession of one co-owner under law is for the benefit of all the co-owners. Therefore, in my considered view both the Courts have given a decision purely on facts which calls for no interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December, 7, 2010 (guleria)