RSA No.3028 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3028 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.11.2011 Rupinder Singh ...Appellant Vs. Amar Singh & Anr. Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Damanjeet, Advocate, for the appellant. A.N.Jindal, J. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for permanent injunction, vide judgment dated 16.05.2009 appeal against which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, on 9.11.2009. The appellant claiming himself to be the Khewatdar of village Neowan, Tehsil Amloh has averred that he is a co-sharer to the extent of 493/8499th share in the land measuring 21 Bighas 4 Biswas 19 Biswais is as fully described in the head-note of the plaint. Mother of the plaintiff Smt. Paramjit Kaur had also 944/8499th share in the said property out of which she had sold 400/8499th share in favour of the defendants by giving specific boundaries vide sale RSA No.3028 of 2010 2 deed dated 13.12.2003 in order to avoid any dispute at their hands so that they may not raise any further claim. However, the defendants started claiming possession over the land from point C as shown in green colour in the site plan attached, and from point I to H, H to G, G to A, A to D and D to C as shown in the site plan as the property of the defendants situated on the north-eastern side of the property of the plaintiff but the plaintiff refused to accede to their request. On being threatened, the plaintiff had to prefer the present suit. The defendants contested the suit stating that the plaintiff and defendants are the co-sharers and the land has not so far been partitioned. Smt.Paramjit Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, had sold whole of her 400/8499th share to the defendants on the basis of the sale deed dated 13.12.2003 over which they are already in possession. Since the parties are co-sharers and no partition had taken place, therefore, such suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. The following issues emerged out of the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the disputed property? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? OPD RSA No.3028 of 2010 3 4. Relief. Rupinder Singh plaintiff while appearing in the witness box has not denied if the parties are co-sharers and no partition has so far taken place. He has also admitted that his mother had sold some share in the land vide sale deed Ex.DW 2/A. Similarly, DW 2 Amar Singh has also categorically deposed that they are in possession of the land sold to them and beyond that they have no right and no cause of action accrues to the plaintiff to file the present suit. In any case, having scrutinized both the judgments, it transpires that Smt. Paramjit Kaur though not a party to the suit, yet she is the mother of the plaintiff and she had sold 400/8499 share in favour of the defendants. Admittedly, no partition has so far been effected between the parties and Amar Singh has also admitted that they have no concern beyond the share as purchased by them, therefore, the suit is bound to fail on two counts inasmuch as the suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action. Secondly, that proper remedy for the plaintiff is to file the suit for partition and not for permanent injunction. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this court. Dismissed in limine. (A.N.Jindal) 7.11.2011 Judge rp