RSA No.1046 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1046 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:10.05.2010 Ude Singh .... appellant Versus Chander & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran,Advocate for the appellant Mr.A.K.Goel, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the defendant/respondents has been accepted against the judgment and decree of the trial court and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed. Appellant filed suit for permanent injunction on the ground that he was in exclusive possession of the land comprised in khewat No.155, khatoni No.406 min, khasra No.749/1/2/1, measuring 10 bighas, but the defendants were bent upon to interfere in his peaceful possession over the said land illegally. Thus, the necessity arose to file the present suit. Upon notice, the defendants/respondents contested the suit submitting that plaintiff/appellants were not in exclusive possession of the suit land as alleged and the suit was based upon false and frivolous RSA No.1046 of 2009(O & M) 2 grounds and was liable to be dismissed. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit property being co-sharer?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not legally maintainable?OPD 4. Relief. The parties to the suit led evidence in support of their respective case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that appellant was in exclusive possession of the suit property being co- sharer as a co-sharer in possession of specific portion over the land more than his share was entitled to keep the same till the partition and therefore the defendants had no right or title to interfere in the peaceful possession of the appellant over the suit property till it was partitioned. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant/respondents filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court found that plaintiff/appellant who had purchased the land comprised in khasra No.749/3/2/2 from one Maisukh, and had become co-sharer cannot be presumed to be in possession of the land in dispute and in fact, the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove as to how he came into possession of the land in dispute. Not satisfied with aforesaid judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. RSA No.1046 of 2009(O & M) 3 Admittedly, plaintiff-appellant had purchased land from one Maisukh falling in khasra No.749/3/2/2 measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas whereas he is seeking permanent injunction against the respondent on the ground that he was co-sharer and in exclusive possession of land falling in khasra No.749/1/2/1 measuring 10 bighas. How appellant came into possession of land in dispute is nowhere explained by him. It is not disputed by the respondents that plaintiff was a co-sharer who could be presumed to be in possession of the land which was in his possession. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be presumed that plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute. At the most, he can be considered as a co-sharer. It is well settled proposition of law that a co-sharer cannot ask for injunction against another co-sharer. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 10.05.2010 neenu