IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No. 2349 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 01, 2008 Balbir Singh ... Appellant Versus Sher Singh .. Respondent CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal. Present : Shri Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant. PRITAM PAL , J. This Regular Second Appeal by plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) is directed against judgment and decree dated 5.10.2005 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri, whereby a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant- respondent from alienating/mortgaging/disposing of any specific and more than his share without getting the suit property partitioned, was dismissed. Thereafter the first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come-up in this appeal. It is fairly admitted that the parties were co-sharers at the time of filing of the suit. At the same time, learned counsel for the appellant states that the partition proceedings are still going on with regard to the suit- property between the parties. If it is so, it is made clear that the partition proceedings shall not be effected in any manner by the order passed in the matter in hand. Regular Second Appeal No. 2349 of 2006 -2- ... It is well settled that one co-sharer cannot restrain the other co- sharer from alienating his share and if any alienation is made by any party the same will be always subject to the order passed in partition proceedings with regard to the suit property between the parties. The findings arrived at by the Courts below are not perverse or unreasonable in any manner. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law, for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. [ PRITAM PAL ] April 1, 2008. JUDGE som