C.R.No.846 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.846 of 2009. Decided on August 19, 2009. Jasvsir Kaur .. Petitioner VERSUS Phino and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Vinod K.Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-defendant has filed this petition against the order passed by the Courts below allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, in a suit for injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs- respondents. Main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a vendee of Mr.Gurdial Singh along with Harbans Kaur, son and daughter of Sham Kaur, is shown to be co- . . . 1 C.R.No.846 of 2009 sharer in the property in dispute. Counsel has referred to entries in the Jamabandi (Annexure P-2), for the year 2003-04. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. In order to establish, prima facie, possession, the defendant-petitioner is required to indicate from the revenue record or otherwise that Gurdial Singh was in actual physical possession of a portion of his share. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to entry in the jamabandi wherein it is reflected that Gurdial Singh and Harbans Kaur had mortgaged 7 kanals 8 marlas of land out of co-owned land with Kartar Kaur. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that a co- sharer cannot claim injunction against another co-sharer. In support of his contention, he has relied upon AIR 1996 BOMBAY 36, 'Prakash S.Akotkar and others', wherein, it is observed that a co- owner in possession of the property for and on behalf of other co- owners cannot claim injunction against co-owners. I have gone through the facts of the said case in which a co-owner of property in dispute was in actual physical possession of the property and it was held that once it is found that possession of co-owner is for and on behalf of other co-owner, the other co-owner cannot claim injunction of this nature so as to exclude the other co-owners from exercising their rights as co- owners. In the present case, the defendant-petitioner claims to be a vendee from co-sharer whose possession, prima facie is not . . . 2 C.R.No.846 of 2009 established on specific khasra numbers, as such, though the petitioner may claim herself to be co-owner on account of sale deed having been executed in her favour by another co-sharer but since the plaintiffs-respondents as co-owners have established their possession, a co-owner in possession of specific khasra number is entitled to protect his possession. In view of the above circumstances, no ground is made out for interfering in the impugned order. However, trial Court is directed to expeditiously dispose of the trial preferably within a period of one year. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 19, 2009. rka . . . 3