R.S.A No. 865 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 865 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : May 14, 2010 Santa Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Mal Singh and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. P.P.S.Duggal, Advocate for the appellant. *** 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 whereby they sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from forcibly dis-possessing them from the suit property except in due course of law. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (a) Whether one co-sharer can restrain the other co- sharer, by filing a suit for permanent injunction, because every co-sharer is in every inch possession of the land in R.S.A No. 865 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: question ? (b) Whether the other co-sharer can be restrained even without the partition of the land in question ? (c) Whether the finding of the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court is not against the settled law qua the co-sharer ? (d) Whether the judgment/decree in question does not result into miscarriage of justice ?” Counsel for the appellant has argued that admittedly the appellant was a co-sharer and, thus, no injunction could be ordered against him. I am afraid no such extreme view is possible. If a co-sharer is shown to be in established exclusive possession over a portion of the property he can certainly protect his possession even against other co- sharers. Once both the Courts below have returned concurrent finding of fact that the respondents were successful in proving their exclusive established possession over the land in dispute, the grant of injunction can not be said to be illegal. In any case, the appellant would have liberty to file an application for partition if there is any inequity in the holding of the respondents. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with 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 ) May 14, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 865 of 2009 (O&M) ::3::