RSA No. 2573 of 2004 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2573 of 2004 Date of decision: March 27,2009 Darbara Singh ..Appellant. Versus Bant Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Ms.Mamta Malik, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.S.Swaich, Advocate for the respondents .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) Defendant No.1 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents was decreed partly for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ousting the plaintiff from the joint possession over the suit property illegally or forcibly with costs but the appellants could raise construction on the portion of the property, which they were in possession but within limits of their share and such construction was subject to partition. In brief, the case of the plaintiff-respondents before the trial Court was that they were joint owners in joint possession of suit property along with the defendants and the property was not partitioned. The parties have made joint construction over the same and the defendants were threatening to oust the plaintiffs from joint possession of suit property and also threatening to make construction over the land more than their share. Hence the suit. Upon notice, defendant No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement. Remaining defendants did not come forward to contest the suit and they were proceeded against ex parte on 13.8.1998. In written statement the defendants Nos.1 and 2 raised various preliminary objections. They stated that RSA No. 2573 of 2004 2 the suit property is not joint and is under exclusive possession of defendant No.1 to the extent of 2/3 share and remaining portion i.e., 1/3 share is under possession of Bhinder Singh son of Mit Singh defendant No.2 and Swaran Kaur wife of late Supinder Singh. Earlier Bant Singh, Teja Singh, Darbara Singh and Mit Singh were residing together in the ancestral house. However, father of defendant No.2 was murdered during the pendency of trial. A compromise took place between Bant Singh, Teja Singh, Darbara Singh and sons of deceased Mit Singh and in that compromise, the ancestral house of parties was given to Bant Singh to the extent of ½ share and remaining ½ share of said house was given to the sons of deceased Mit Singh. From the suit land, 1/3rd share was also given to the sons of Mit Singh and the remaining 2/3 was given to defendant No.1 who relinquished his right, title and interest in favour of plaintiff No.1 and sons of Mit Singh. Further material averments were denied and it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. The trial court on appraisal of evidence recorded its findings partly in favour of plaintiffs to the extent that plaintiffs were entitled to injunction to the limited extent restraining the defendants from ousting the plaintiffs from joint possession. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.9.2001. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal which was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.2.2004. Still not satisfied, defendant No.1 has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the parties are co-owners of the suit property and are also shown to be in joint possession of the same and therefore, they being co-owners have the right to protect their joint possession and cannot be ousted from the same. However, it was held that since the defendants are co-owners of RSA No. 2573 of 2004 3 the suit property. They have right on the same and were well within their right to raise construction on the same was subject to the final partition and it was mentioned that any construction upon the suit property would be subject to adjustment at the time of final partition. I find no infirmity or illegality in the aforesaid findings of the courts below. No substantial questions of law arises. No merits. Dismissed. March 27, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE