R. S. A. No. 3806 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. S. A. No. 3806 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2008 Jasmail Kaur ..... Appellant vs Sukhdeep Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is in appeal before this court against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below whereby the suit filed by her for permanent injunction was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the the appellant/plaintiff field a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in her peaceful possession over the suit land with the contention that she along with her daughter were co-owners of the land in dispute along with Bhupinder Singh, Ram Singh, Mewa Singh and Jit Singh. The appellant and her daughter had filed partition petition before the A.C. 1st Grade, Sangrur, on 17.7.2000. The property amongst the co-sharers was partitioned and no appeal or revision having been filed against the same, it had attained finality. On the basis of Sanad partition, the appellant and her daughter were in possession of the land coming to their share in due process of law. As the revenue authorities have not incorporated necessary mutation in the revenue record, the appellant is being threatened of her possession over the land. Both the courts below did not find favour with the contention of the appellant and dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that once the partition had taken place, the appellant was entitled to protect her possession on the exclusive share of the land and the learned courts below have gone wrong in dismissing the suit of injunction filed by her. However, he could not dispute the fact that no material could be brought on record to show that the partition amongst the co-sharers was carried out in the R. S. A. No. 3806 of 2007 2 revenue record with the approval of the competent authority. Once this fact is admitted, the appellant could not state or prove that there was any partition of the joint khata and accordingly a suit for permanent injunction against the co-sharers was not maintainable. The findings recorded by the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 18.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge