RSA No.3544 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.3544 of 2009 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 29.04.2010 **** Naresh Kumar . . . .Appellant Versus Rajeev Kumar and others . . . .Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Plaintiff is in second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby, his suit filed for permanent injunction has been dismissed. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased plot measuring 4.96 Marlas out of Mustatil No.167 Killa No.21/5(1-9) from Tara Singh son of Anoop Singh vide registered sale deed dated 25.5.1995 and is in possession since then. He has constructed the boundary walls around the said plot and the defendants, who have no right or concern with the said plot, is trying to interfere in his possession. Therefore, the suit was filed to restrain them. The defendants have pleaded that they have purchased 9.94 Marlas of land out of land comprising of Rect. No.172 Killa No.1 (7-8) and Rect. No.167 Killa No. 21/5(1-9). It is denied that the RSA No.3544 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - plaintiff has constructed any boundary wall on the part of the suit land and alleged that the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit property, therefore, question of his dispossession does not arise. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has become a co-sharer with the defendant and being a co-sharer has no right to seek injunction not being in an exclusive possession. The only remedy available to him is to seek partition of the joint land as he has purchased 5/29 share out of the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any defect in the judgment and decree of both the Courts below nor he could raised any question of law much less substantial in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) and as such the appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, though, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 29.04.2010 JUDGE Vivek