R.S.A. No. 3080 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3080 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 3, 2011 Jagdish Singh and others …..Appellants Vs. Baljit Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Raman Walia, Advocate for the appellants. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Deficiency in Court fee has been made good. Application stands disposed of. Plaintiffs have filed this second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration that the plaintiffs alongwith defendants No.1 to 6 are in joint cultivating possession of total land measuring 66 kanals 11 marlas mentioned in the heading of the plaint and that the revenue entries showing the cultivation of R.S.A. No. 3080 of 2010 (O&M) [2] suit land in the name of defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 as co-sharers were null and void and for declaration that the lease hold rights transferred by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No.5 and 6 regarding 2 kanals 14 marlas of land is illegal being against the wishes of other co- sharers. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have arrived at a finding of fact that the plaintiff- appellants and defendants No.1 to 4 are co- owners in the disputed property and the revenue entries indicate that they are in possession of specific khasra numbers since long. The plea of the defendant- respondents that by virtue of family partition effected about 3 years prior to the filing of the suit, the property has been partitioned has been disbelieved. On appreciation of the evidence, the suit of the plaintiff- appellants for declaration and injunction stands dismissed. Counsel for the plaintiff- appellants has contended that the defendant- respondents are raising construction on the property in dispute by demolishing the earlier constructions and in view of the matter regarding partition being pending, irreparable loss would be suffered by the plaintiff- appellants. It has further been argued that in case the defendant- respondents continue to collect lease money from the tenants and are permitted to utilize the same without any accounting, a serious prejudice would be caused to the rights of the appellants who are co-sharers of the defendants. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff- appellants at length and considered his contentions and appreciated the apprehensions that the fruits of joint property would be enjoyed by the respondents to the prejudice of R.S.A. No. 3080 of 2010 (O&M) [3] the plaintiff- appellants but I am of the opinion that neither it is permissible to restrain the defendant- respondents to raise construction or to derive benefits by enjoying the possession over the specific portion in the jointly owned land nor it would be feasible to issue any direction regarding accounting of the mesne profit of the jointly owned property. The Courts below have adjudicated the matter taking into consideration the basic concept of co-ownership as laid down by the Full Bench in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1988 PLJ 204 and other authorities on the point. It is an admitted fact that partition proceedings are pending between the parties. No substantial question of law is involved warranting interference in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, in the exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC. Dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to seek mesne profits or rendition of accounts, in case permission under law. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that a direction be given to the revenue authorities to expeditiously adjudicate upon the partition proceedings. Since the said prayer is beyond the original prayer made in the plaint, it will not be appropriate to issue any direction. However, it is open to the appellants to make a request to the concerned authorities for expeditious disposal of the proceedings in accordance with law. February 3, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE