R.S.A.No.308 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.308 of 2008 Date of Decision : 01.07.2009 Jagiri Ram and others ...Appellants Versus Bakshish Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. M/s Vijay Lath and Naveen Sharma, Advocates, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court to the extent that the judgment of the trial Court was modified restraining the defendant from raising construction over an area forming part of Khasra No.23R/7. The parties are co-sharers. The partition proceedings are stated to be pending before the Revenue Authorities as recorded by the Courts below. The learned trial Court has appointed a Local Commissioner, who has reported that the defendant has raised foundation in part of Khasra No.23R/7. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit in respect of the aforesaid portion holding that the defendant is in exclusive possession of the same. The said finding was set aside by the learned Appellate Court on the ground that the defendant cannot be permitted to raise construction over a specific portion of the joint property and to change the nature of the land till the partition of the suit property. R.S.A.No.308 of 2008 2 Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that since the defendant has admittedly raised some construction over the property, therefore, the part is in their exclusive possession. Therefore, the finding of the learned First Appellate Court is not sustainable and run counter to the Division Bench's judgment of this Court in Bachan Singh Vs. Swaran Singh 2001 AIR (Punjab) 112. The said argument is not tenable for the reason that all the co- owners are deemed to be in possession of the joint property. Raising of construction over a part of Khasra No.23R/7 is pre-judicial and adverse to the interest of other co-owners as a co-owner cannot be permitted to raise construction over a portion so as to harm the interest of the other co- owners. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court as finding of fact alone are sought to be disputed in the present appeal. 01.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE