IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.4174 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.08.2010 Kulwant Singh ........Appellant Versus Gopal Singh .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate for the appellant. ****** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in his possession over the suit land, with a further prayer of restraining the respondent from dispossessing the appellant illegally, forcibly and without due course of law, was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, one Sulakhan Singh son of Ujaggar Singh was in actual, physical and cultivating possession over the land in dispute, under the original owners, since the partition of the country. Said Sulakhan Singh had expired and after his death, the appellant being one of the legal heir of said Sulakhan Singh came in actual physical possession over the suit land as tenant and the defendant has got no right, title or interest in the suit land, though, defendant is alleging that he had purchased the portion of the suit land from the original owners, however, the same is incorrect and even if any such sale is proved, the defendant has got no right to dispossess the appellant from the suit property without due course of law. Hence, the present suit. R.S.A. No.4174 of 2009 -2- Upon notice, respondent put in appearance and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections including that the appellant had concealed material facts from the knowledge of the Court as appellant had purchased 1 Kanal 7 Marlas of land from one Avtar Singh son of Santokh Singh forming part of Rect. 14 Killa 12/2 and his status was of a co-sharer and no injunction can be granted against a co-sharer. On merits, it was stated that respondent had purchased land measuring 4 Kanals 2 Marlas forming part of Rect. 14 Killa 12/2 vide registered sale deed dated 19.07.2000 and by virtue of the same, he was owner in possession and thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed. From the pleadings of the party, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 4. Relief. While dismissing the suit of the appellant, the trial Court noticed that it was a case of no evidence and in fact, the appellant has not even stepped into witness box to support the pleadings of his case. Since appellant failed to prove his exclusive possession over the suit land as tenant, he was not entitled to injunction as prayed. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed. Still not satisfied, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below submitting that the following substantial questions of law arises in this appeal:- (i) Whether the appellant will not be termed as a tenant on the R.S.A. No.4174 of 2009 -3- land in question even though a part of it has been purchased by the respondent? (ii) Whether the respondent will be termed as a co-sharer in the given facts of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that appellant has failed to establish on record that he was in possession of the suit land as a tenant. There is not an iota of evidence to support the plea of the appellant. Even appellant himself has not stepped into witness box in support of his case. Only this, documentary evidence has come on record to prove that, in fact, appellant is a co-sharer in the suit property. In view of the aforesaid facts, which could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the findings of the Courts below cannot be held to be wrong or perverse. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. August 31, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Gagan JUDGE