IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1070 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 7, 2011. Tara Chand. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Sukhbir. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. D.B.Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Sonepat vide which suit filed by respondent- plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed. RSA No.1070 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, both the parties are real brothers. Admittedly they are co-shares in the entire property in dispute. The present suit has been filed by respondent-plaintiff only regarding portion shown by letters EFGH in the sketch Ex.P1 of plot no.215 in the site plan attached with the plaint on the ground that the said portion has been continuing in his possession and that hence, appellant-defendant is having no right to interfere with the same. Both the courts came to the conclusion that the said disputed portion has been continuing in possession of respondent-plaintiff. Moreover, appellant- defendant has also admitted that respondent-plaintiff is having possession of the said disputed portion of the land. Admittedly, present appellant- defendant has already filed a suit for partition of entire joint property against respondent-plaintiff which is still pending. In this case, present appellant- defendant has already been restrained from interfering in possession of respondent-plaintiff except in due course of law and he has already filed suit for possession for partition by taking recourse to due course of law. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial 2 RSA No.1070 of 2010 question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 7, 2011 JUDGE ‘om’ 3