1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 63 of 2009 (O&M). Date of Decision: 12.1.2009 *** Bahadur Singh. .. Appellant VS. Kuljeet Singh. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay condoned. The instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court as well as learned first appellate court dated 8.5.2008 and 13.8.2008 respectively by dint of which he has been restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the paper-book carefully. The plaintiff-respondent, a co-sharer in the suit property filed a suit against the appellant-defendant, the other co-sharer with the averments that the latter be restrained from further alienating the suit property in any manner, since he had already sold the land in excess to his share, out of the suit property. What emerges out from the record is that there is no dispute to the fact that the appellant was 2 having 1/3rd share in the suit land measuring 5 K-16 M and as per his own admission of the appellant he sold away 4K-18M land, out of his share, to one Smt. Sneh Prabha and further sold 14M of land along with Sampuran Kaur to one Dr. K.D. Sharma vide registered sale-deed. Even his own witness admitted that the defendant is not in possession of the suit property. The observations made by the learned appellate court below while affirming the findings of the learned trial court are relevant, which read thus:- “11. It is admitted case of the parties to the extent that the defendant was having 1/3 share in the suit land as per copy of Jamabandi Ex.P1. Defendant Bahadur Singh when appeared as DW1 stated in cross examination that, “He could not tell the khasra number of suit land being illiterate. It was correct that he was having 1/3 share in the suit land i.e. 5K- 16M. It was correct that he has already sold 4K-18M out of his share to Smt. Sneh Prabha etc. It was correct that he alongwith Sampuran Kaur had sold 14M land out of suit land to Dr. K.D. Sharma vide registered sale deed dated 18.10.1999, mark C”. DW2 Jasbir Singh has also stated in cross examination that “It was correct that Bahadur Singh (defendant) was not in possession over the suit land”. This clearly shows that the defendant has already sold away the land in excess of his share in the suit land. Under such circumstances, learned trial court was perfectly justified in restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land in any manner.” From the above observations, there leaves no manner of doubt that the appellant-defendant was rightly restrained from alienating the suit land in any manner. Nothing has been shown to take a view contrary from that which has been taken by both the 3 Courts below. It cannot be said that the findings so returned are either perverse or based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 12,2009 Jiten