R.S.A No. 57 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 57 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : March 18, 2010 Om Parkash, ...... Appellant (s) v. Dharampal and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harkesh Manuja and Mr. Arun Luthra, Advocates for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in their possession over a plot measuring 160 sq. yards which had been purchased by them. Both the Courts below have noticed that the land continuous to be joint. They have further noticed that possession of the plot in dispute was handed over to the respondents by their vendor. The following questions have been proposed :- R.S.A No. 57 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: “ A) Whether the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction is maintainable without seeking the declaration to be owner of the specific portion ? B) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs could succeed on the strength of their own case and not on the defendant's weakness found in the case of the defendant ? C) Whether the co-sharer who is not in possession of the specific portion of any part of the property can seek injunction against the another co-sharer, unless no person in possession of the property causes prejudice or is adverse to the interest of the co-sharer who is out of possession ? D) Whether the learned lower appellate Court is justified to decide the appeal without adjudicating the application under Order 41 Rule 27 filed by the appellant?” Counsel for the appellant has not argued any of the questions proposed but has stated that in law no injunction could have been granted in favour of a co-sharer during a partition suit which could prejudicially affect the rights of other co-sharers. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny that the land is still joint. Once that is so, even if possession was given to the respondents by their vendor, it has to be held to be subject to the rights of other co-sharers to seek partition. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with a clarification that R.S.A No. 57 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: the possession of the respondents over the suit property would have no effect on any proceedings of partition which may be initiated between the parties. No order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 18, 2010. JUDGE `kk'