IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : April 11, 2008 1. RSA No. 633 of 2008 (O&M) Darshan Lal and others versus Ram Kumar and others 2. RSA No. 634 of 2008 (O&M) Darshan Lal and others versus Ram Kumar and others Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) The aforesaid regular second appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and decree dated 25.8.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same by this common order. Suffice it to say that appellants Darshan Lal and Phool Singh had filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 0 kanal 11 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 677/611, Khatauni No. 837, Khasra No. 1331 Min (0-8) and khewat no. 706/646, khatauni no. 888 Min khasra No. 1333 min (0-3), as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the contesting defendant/respondents from raising further construction or alienating any portion of the suit land. Ultimately the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that they are entitled to the possession of 4 marlas of land out of khasra no. 1331 from RSA Nos. 633 and 634 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the contesting defendants/respondents, vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2006. At the same time a direction was also issued to hand over the possession of the same to the appellants within a period of two months. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties had filed the first appeals before the learned District Judge wherein findings of the learned trial court were reversed and it was held that since the suit property was joint of the parties and they are co-sharers therein, thus, the suit for possession was held un- tenable. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the contesting defendant/respondents namely Ram Kumar and Smt. Parsanni Devi was allowed whereas the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellants was dismissed with costs throughout. This is how feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/appellants have come up in this regular second appeal. The only noticeable point of argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that since the respondent/defendants had encroached upon the area as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, therefore, the appellants are entitled for the restoration of the same. This contention fails to carry any conviction with this Court inasmuch as from the documentary evidence placed on the file, it is evident and well established that at the time of passing the decree, both the parties were co-sharers/co-owners in the suit property and the events which had taken place subsequently i.e. after filing of the suit were not taken note of by the trial court whereby respondents had become co-sharers in the suit property. Faced with such a situation, the proper remedy for the appellants was to be get the suit property partitioned instead of filing suit for possession, as rightly held by the first appellate court. RSA Nos. 633 and 634 of 2008 (O&M) -3- In this view of the matter, both the appeals are not maintainable. Moreso, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law in these appeals for consideration by this Court. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed in limine. Since the main appeals are dismissed on merits, so no order is required to be passed on the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. ( Pritam Pal ) April 11, 2008 Judge 'dalbir' IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : April 11, 2008 RSA No. 634 of 2008 (O&M) Darshan Lal and others versus Ram Kumar and others Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) For orders, see RSA No. 633 of 2008 (O&M) Darshan Lal and others versus Ram Kumar and others. ( Pritam Pal ) April 11, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'