RSA No.1395 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:05.05.2008. Ishwar and others .... Appellants. Versus Birmah and others .... Respondents. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Tarunveer Vashist,Advocate, for the appellants. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the record of the case. This is defendant's Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. Respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming to be in possession of the suit property as detailed in paragraph 1- A of the plaint, situated in village Sanoli Kalan, Sub Tehsil-Bapoli, District Panipat and they also enjoy equal shares in another agricultural land detailed in paragraph 1-B of the plaint, situated in the same village. They also claimed ownership and possession with respondent Nos.6 to 8 of a RSA No.1395 of 2008 -2- separate property detailed in paragraph 1-C of the plaint and similarly in the property detailed in paragraph 1-D of the plaint. It is admitted case between the parties that the property was originally held by one Ram Dhari, who had four sons including Bishambar. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the estate of Bishambar, who died issueless and without marriage. Bishambar during his life time suffered a decree dated 08.01.1990 wherein he kept one half share out of his share in the suit property for himself and remaining property was given to plaintiffs and defendants under the decree. Later, Bishambar executed a will dated 26.11.1998 whereunder agricultural land in Rect. No.17, Killa No.1 Rect. No.14, Killa Nos.11,12, 19 and 20 (Shamlat land) was given to Ram Singh and gave 1/3rd share to plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5. Another 1/7th share to plaintiff Nos.6 to 8 and the remaining 1/3rd share to defendant Nos.1 to 4. This will is also challenged in the present suit. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.08.2007, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the decree dated 08.01.1990 is valid. The learned trial Court also declared the will to be non-est and without any effect on the rights of the parties. This finding was returned in view of the fact that the property subject matter of the will was given away by the deceased Bishambar in the decree dated 08.01.1990 and thus, he was not competent to execute the will with respect to the property which he has already parted with title and the possession. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant- defendants preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Panipat. The learned Lower Appellate Court after scanning the evidence on record, concurred with the findings recorded RSA No.1395 of 2008 -3- by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants has, primarily, raised only one question that the learned Courts below were not competent to grant injunction against the co-sharer. From the impugned judgment and decree, it appears that injunction has been granted by the learned Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants not to dispossess them from the suit land. Such an injunction is not prohibited by law. No co-sharer has a right to dispossess the other co-sharer forcibly. No substantial question of law arises. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 05.05.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO