R.S.A.NO. 3878 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No. 11839-40-C of 2009 and R.S.A.NO. 3878 of 2009 Date of decision: 29th October, 2009 Deep Kaur ......Appellant Versus Narain Singh and others ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. No. 11839-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No.11840-C of 2009 and R.S.A.No.3878 of 2009 The appellant challenges judgments and decrees dated 8.05.2007 and 28.07.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), and the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing her suit and her appeal, respectively. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that as she is owner of 1/8th share , respondents no. 1 and 2 be restrained from alienating the land beyond their share. Respondents no. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte, whereas, respondent no. 3 filed a written statement, pleading therein that respondents no. 1 and 2 executed an agreement to sell 7 marlas of land dated 8.02.2002 and have received Rs. 50,000/- as earnest R.S.A.NO. 3878 of 2009 2 money. This agreement, was however, cancelled and an another agreement was executed on 10.04.2002. It was pleaded that respondents no. 1 and 2 being owners of the suit land are entitled to execute the agreement to sell. The trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant has failed to prove that respondents no. 1 and 2, do not have any right to execute an agreement to sell or that the agreement is beyond their share holding. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2009, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal by affirming the findings recorded by the trial court and in addition held that there appears to be collusion between the appellant and respondents no. 1 and 2 the appellant's brothers, so as to defeat the rights of respondent no. 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that, admittedly the appellant is owner of 1/8th share. The demarcation report Ex.P-4 establishes that the suit land, has fallen to her share. In this view of the matter, the appeal should be allowed and the respondents should be restrained from alienating the suit land beyond their share. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and fail to discern any error, as would raise a substantial question of law. The appellant claims that as she is a co-sharer respondents no. 1 and 2 should be restrained from alienating land beyond their share. The courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the appellant has failed to prove that respondents no. 1 and 2 propose to alienate land beyond their share. Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any error of law in these findings. It appears that respondents no. 1 and 2 have set up the appellant, their sister, to defeat the rights of respondent no. 3 R.S.A.NO. 3878 of 2009 3 under an agreement to sell. The suit and the appeal were therefore, rightly dismissed. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 29th October, 2009 Shivani Kaushik