RSA. No.3843 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA. No.3843 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.09.2010 Varinder Kumar ....…Appellant Versus Yashpal and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Varinder Kumar-plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. Parties are joint owners in joint possession of the suit property along with other co-sharers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants intended to sell valuable portion of the suit property abutting main road without getting the joint property partitioned. The defendants were also threatening to change the nature of the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the suit land by carving out plots without getting it partitioned, in excess of their share, without consent of the plaintiff and from changing nature of suit land and from raising any type of construction. Defendants in their written statement admitted that parties are joint owners in possession of the suit property. However, they pleaded that with mutual consent of the parties, plots have been carved out in the suit property and one corner plot was sold to one Surinder Pal by plaintiff and defendants. Said Surinder Pal had constructed house thereon by spending huge amount. Foundations of the remaining plots have been filled by the parties with their mutual consent and free Will. RSA. No.3843 of 2010 2 Defendants also pleaded that they are not intending to alienate any share out of the suit property without having it partitioned nor are intending to change its nature. Other averments of the plaint were controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2010 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the suit land and from changing its nature without partition. The defendants in their written statement stated that they are not intending to alienate any share out of the suit property without having it partitioned nor are intending to change its nature. In view of said undertaking in the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiff is left with no grievance. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is completely misconceived and untenable. Without going into other aspects of the case, the instant second appeal is dismissed in limine on this short ground. 30.09.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE