Civil Revision No.4019 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4019 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.7.2009 Darshan Singh ......Petitioner Versus Roor Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, alleging themselves to be in peaceful, open and continuous possession of the suit property for more than 50 years as owners. It was alleged that on 10.11.2004, the defendant trespassed the suit land and destroyed the hut of the plaintiffs and removed the diesel engine which led to the filing of the present summary suit for possession. In the written statement, the stand of the defendant-petitioner was that a suit challenging the sale deed dated 19.3.2004 is pending in which an order of status quo was passed. The defendant denied the possession of the plaintiff. It was alleged that sisters of Persini, namely, Civil Revision No.4019 of 2009 (2) Dhammo and Dhanno, executed a sale deed in favour of the present petitioner and delivered possession of their share of the land to the defendant and, thus, he is in possession of the suit land as owner thereof. The learned trial Court has found that the revenue records i.e. Jamabandis for the years 2002-03 (Exhibit P.1); 1992-93 (Exhibit P.3) and 1987-88 (Exhibit P.4), show that Persini; Dhanno and Dhamo were in possession of the equal share and the property was mortgaged with one Jaswant Rai. It was found that one Santa Singh, father of plaintiff No.1 and husband of plaintiff No.2, is recorded as a person in possession, which possession is reflected in the revenue record. Khasra Girdawari for the year 2003-07, reflects change of in the name of Darshan Singh. It was, thus, held that Santa Singh was in possession of the suit property as Gair Marusi and after his death, the plaintiff came in possession of the suit property. It was only in the year 2007, the possession of defendant is recorded. The defendant is claiming possession over the suit property in pursuance of the sale deed allegedly executed by a co-sharer. Sale of an undivided share by co-sharer will not entitle the vendee to take forcible possession of the suit property. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 22-07-2009 ds