R.S.A No. 2326 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2326 of 2007 Date of decision : August 12, 2009 Kewal Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Harnam Singh and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the appellant. *** 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondents whereby they had sought permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the property in dispute on the ground that he had no right to sell any specific part/portion/khasra number. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether injunction can be granted against the owner in possession of the property in question ? ii) Whether any judgment and decree passed by Courts below are perverse ? R.S.A No. 2326 of 2007 ::2:: iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the property has been partitioned by the Revenue Authorities by virtue of order dated 2.5.1984 and appellant was given particular khasra Nos., can the other party claim injunction qua those khasra numbers ? iv) Whether the proper opportunity was afforded to the appellant to prove his case ? v) Whether the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decree dated 12.8.1985 passed by Civil Court can be set aside by the Court especially when the same has not been challenged by either of parties ?” The key question is question No. (iii). Both the Courts have held on fact that no partition took place on 2.5.1984. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings of the Courts below in this regard are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. Once it is established that the property is still joint, the fact that the appellant is in exclusive possession of some portion would not give him any right to sell specific khasra number. In fact, both the Courts below have held that partition proceedings are pending between the parties and in the circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to expect that in case the appellant is so keen to sell his property he should get the partition proceedings finalized. In this view of the matter, questions No.(i) and (ii) do not arise. No arguments have been addressed on question No.(iv). As regards, question No.(v), the Courts below have only held that the decree R.S.A No. 2326 of 2007 ::3:: dated 12.8.1985 does not relate to the property in dispute. Even this is a question of fact. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 12, 2009. JUDGE `kk'