R.S.A. No. 780 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 780 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.9.2010 Labh Singh & Ors. ... Appellants. Versus Gurchet Singh ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This is the second appeal preferred by defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008 passed by Additional District Judge Mansa, dismissing their first appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2008 passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Mansa, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land in dispute. The plaintiff, who is a co-sharer in the land in dispute, based his claim for the relief of permanent injunction, on his exclusive possession. The defendants contested his plea on the ground that out of total suit land Gurbachan Singh, and Gurcharan Singh defendants are coming in possession of 12 kanals, which abuts the land on Gurbachan Singh by virtue of family partition which was effected between the parties in the presence of the witnesses. They opposed the claim of the plaintiff regarding 9 Kanals and 12 marlas of land, out of the total suit land, on the ground that the same R.S.A. No. 780 of 2009 (O&M) -2- is owned and possessed by defendants No. 7 and 8. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has no right to file present suit?OPD 3. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing present suit by his act and conduct?OPD. 4. Relief. After going through the evidence produced by both the sides and hearing learned counsel on their behalf all the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. In fact Issues No.2 and 3 were not pressed by the defendants and the main contest between the parties was only regarding issued No.1. The finding in favour of the plaintiff was recorded on the ground that he produced unimpleadable evidence that he was coming in exclusive possession of the land in dispute as the co-sharer. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the defendants that the substantial questions of law arises in this appeal is “whether co-sharer can maintain a suit for permanent injunction against the other co-sharers and whether after the family settlement having been arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff can claim exclusive possession on any part of the land?” These cannot be said to substantial questions of law. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by lower Courts that the plaintiff proved that he was coming in exclusive possession of the land. A co-sharer cannot R.S.A. No. 780 of 2009 (O&M) -3- interfer in the exclusive possession of the other co-sharer and his only remedy is by way of filing suit of for partition. It is well settled that no cognizance can be taken of the family setllement/partition which has not been given effect to in the revenue record. When no such substantial question of law arises, this second appeal is dismissed. September 13, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge