RSA No. 359 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 998-C of 2010 and RSA No. 359 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 05, 2010 Partap Singh ...... Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.S.Manhas, 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. 998-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 21 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 359 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in his exclusive possession over the house in dispute which is built on joint land. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent was able to prove that he was in exclusive possession of RSA No. 359 of 2010(O&M) 2 the house in dispute. Both the Courts have recorded that there is no documentary evidence in support of either party because the sale deed which has been produced by the appellant has not been believed since there was a variation in the terms of that sale deed and the oral testimony of the parties. The Courts have noticed the admission of the appellant in his cross- examination that the respondent is in unauthorised possession of the house in dispute. The Courts have also relied upon the report of the local commissioner which established that the respondent was in exclusive possession of the house in dispute. The following questions have been raised:- a) Whether the courts below have misread the evidence and thereby returned the wrong finding on all the issues? b) Whether an injunction can be issued against the cp-sharer where the other co-sharer failed to be in exclusive possession? c) Whether the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case and not entitled for injunction? It would be seen that questions No. (a) and ( c ) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the courts below 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 question No.(b), the said question is itself answered when the finding of the court below is seen where it has been concurrently found that the respondent has proved that he was in exclusive possession of the house in dispute. In the circumstances holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. RSA No. 359 of 2010(O&M) 3 Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 05, 2010 sunita