C.M. No.7617-C of 2009 and -1- RSA No.2560 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.7617-C of 2009 and RSA No.2560 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.07.2009 Mewa and others ...Appellants VERSUS Mehtab Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the appellants. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) C.M. No.7617-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned, delay of 1 day in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.2560 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for mandatory injunction directing the appellants not to interfere/block the rasta provided to the respondents in partition proceedings. Learned counsel has framed the following questions:- 1. “Whether the learned Courts below can issue an injunction against a co-sharer? C.M. No.7617-C of 2009 and -2- RSA No.2560 of 2009 2. Whether a co-sharer in possession of land in question is entitle to protect his possession till partition of the land specifically when he is not in possession more than his share?” As regards question No.1, learned counsel has not been able to substantiate that in no case can an injunction be issued against a co-sharer. As regards question No.2, the plea is based on the presumption that partition proceedings have not taken place. However, both the Courts below have found that partition proceedings did take place, the revenue authorities did provide a rasta, these facts were incorporated in the mutation and last but not the least, this whole action was reflected in subsequent jamabandies. In the face of this evidence, the bald testimony of the appellants that no partition proceedings took place can not be accepted. It has to be held that partition did take place and the rasta was provided. Learned counsel has sought to rely upon the report of the Local Commissioner where it was mentioned that there was no rasta at the spot. This fact has been considered by the Courts below who have held that even Local Commissioner found that there was a water course on the spot and that this admitted fact was indicative of the position that atleast the said area was vacant land. In my opinion the finding of fact that the partition took place and that the rasta was provided has not been displaced by learned counsel. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that either this finding is based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render it perverse. C.M. No.7617-C of 2009 and -3- RSA No.2560 of 2009 Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 15, 2009 JUDGE ashish