IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3259 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 1.5.2009 Jai-Shee Ram ......Appellant Versus Jagpal Saini and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.2377-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in this application, the application is allowed. Order dated 13.1.2009 dismissing the appeal in default, is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM No.9757 of 2008 Allowed as prayed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.9759 & 9760-C of 2008 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I find sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 4 days and 196 days in filing and refiling the appeal. CMs stand disposed of accordingly. RSA No.3259 of 2008(O&M) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below dismissing his suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 13.3.1991 executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff and further for mandatory injunction to the effect that defendant No.3 be directed to restore the vacant possession of the plot in the suit property. RSA No.3259 of 2008(O&M) -2- While dismissing the suit, the trial Court found that the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the suit land and his suit seeking declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants, who were co-sharers, was not maintainable. It was also observed by the trial Court that the plaintiff who is a co-sharer in the suit land can seek possession of his share by way of partition. On appeal, the Lower Appellate Court affirmed these findings. It is also relevant to mention that the defendant-respondents have not challenged the aforesaid findings of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to find fault with the aforesaid findings reached by the Courts below. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. May 1, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE