In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. R.S.A.No. 1602 of 2006 Decided on 23.10.2008 Vijay Kumar --Appellant vs. Raj Kumar and others -- Respondents. Present: Mr.S.K.Sharma,Advocate,for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: The plaintiff is in second appeal in a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that he and proforma defendants are joint owners in possession of the land bearing Khewat No. 181, Khatoni No.233, Khasra No.118(1-0),153 (10-7), 55/1 (1-4), Killa 3 measuring 2 Kanals 11 marlas situated in village Nangal Mundi, Tehsil and District Rewari, on the basis of a family settlement of June,1996 between the co-sharers including the plaintiff and proforma defendants in which the aforesaid land fell to their shares, which is being used for parking their trolly as well as harrows, cultivators, for placing heap of cow dung cakes and also stones and bricks. It is further averred that they are in exclusive possession over the suit land but the defendants being strong headed persons on the basis of their muscle power were bent upon to dispossess them from the land in dispute forcibly and illegally. After notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit. It R.S.A.No. 1602 of 2006 -2- is alleged by them that Raj Kumar-defendant No.1 has got a share in the land in dispute but user of the land and family settlement as alleged by the plaintiff was denied by the defendants. According to the defendants, they are using the property in dispute for tethering their cattle and placing cow dung cakes etc in it. On the basis of evidence available on record led by both the parties, the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove his exclusive possession along-with the proforma defendants. It was also found that the defendants are co-shares in the suit land. Therefore, injunction against a co-sharer was not granted. Mr.S.K.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to find any fault in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Therefore, there is no question of law much-less substantial involved in this appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. October 23,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge