R.S.A No. 278 of 2007 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.11458-C of 2009 and R.S.A No. 278 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : October 29, 2009 Harkishan (dead) through L.Rs & another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Sunder and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.R.Verma, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J C.M.No.11458-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed subject to just exceptions. The persons mentioned in para 3 of the application are impleaded as legal representatives of appellant No.1-Har Kishan (since deceased). Office is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo. Of parties. R.S.A No.278 of 2007 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the R.S.A No. 278 of 2007 (O&M) ::2:: Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that they had become owners of the property in dispute on account of the abandonment by the respondents, as also on the basis of adverse possession. Alongwith the relief of declaration, the plaintiffs had also sought for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from forcibly dis- possessing them from the land in dispute. Both the Courts have held that the plea of abandonment could not be proved by the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs and the defendants were all co-sharers in the land in dispute. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The following questions have been proposed :- “ I. Whether the Courts below have properly considered the ratio laid down in Mann Singh vs Telu and others, AIR 1967 Punjab 252 with regard to the plea of abandonment ? II. Whether the appellants are entitled to decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land when it is duly proved on the record that the predecessor in interest of the respondents had abandoned the suit land ? III. Whether the appellants are entitled for decree for permanent injunction, when they are in established possession over the suit land ? IV. Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are the result of non-appreciation, wrong appreciation and mis-appreciation of law and facts of the case ?” It would be seen that questions No.I, II and IV are questions of R.S.A No. 278 of 2007 (O&M) ::3:: fact relating to the plea of abandonment set up by the appellants. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would require interference by this Court under Section 100 of the CPC. With regard to question No.(III), counsel for the appellants has argued that once the appellants were held to be in possession, they are entitled for a decree of permanent injunction and the respondents cannot forcibly dis-possess them. I find that the Courts below have rightly held that the possession of the appellants over the land in dispute is merely that of a co- sharer and that in such a case no injunction can be granted in favour of one co-sharer. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 29, 2009. JUDGE `kk'