R.S.A.No.914 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.914 of 2007 Date of Decision : 26.08.2009 Surjit Singh ...Appellant Versus Hoshiar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction over the land measuring 4 Kanals 6 Marlas, was decreed. The defendant is purchaser of land measuring 1 Kanal 11 Marlas vide sale deed dated 5.12.1995 from one Santokh Singh, co-owner of the plaintiff. The case of the appellant is that the sale was of a specific khasra number i.e. 1607, therefore, he has the right of construction over the said land having purchased the specific khasra number from the co- owner. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs are entitled to R.S.A.No.914 of 2007 2 injunction as sale by a co-owner even of a specific khasra number is a sale of a share of the joint property and that the defendant cannot be permitted to raise construction on the whole front side of khasra number i.e. total width of the khasra number towards the road side. With the said finding, the suit stands decreed. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that since the appellant has purchased specific khasra number, he is entitled to raise construction thereon, subject to rights of the parties in partition proceedings. The construction which shall be raised by the appellant can be adjusted at the time of partition. Reference is made to Mukhtiar Singh Vs. Tara Singh and another 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 379. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The Full Bench in Bhartu Vs.Ram Sarup 1981 PLJ 204 reiterated by Larger Bench in Ram Chander Vs. Bhim Singh and others 2008(3) PLR 747, has held that even if sale by a co-owner of a specific khasra number, still it is a sale of the share of the joint property. Therefore, even if specific khasra number has been sold to the appellant, the appellant is not entitled to raise any construction on such specific portion unless the partition proceedings are finalized so as to jeopardise the rights of other co-owners. In Ram Chander's case (supra), it has been held to the following effect : "18. It is, therefore, apparent that a co-owner has an interest in the entire property and also in every parcel of the joint land. When a co-sharer alienates his share or a part thereof in the joint holding what he brings forth for sale is what he owns i.e. a joint undivided interest in the joint property. A khasra/killa number, forming part of a specific khasra/killa number, forming R.S.A.No.914 of 2007 3 part of a specific rectangle number, but being a part of a joint khewat would, in view of the nature of the rights conferred upon a co-sharer, be deemed to be the sale of a share from the joint khewat and such a vendee would be deemed to be a co- owner/co-sharer in the entire joint khewat, irrespective of the artificial divisions of the joint land into different rectangles, khasra and killa numbers. 19. Another attribute of joint property is that where a co- owners in possession of a specific portion of the joint holding and recorded as such in the revenue record, transfers any right, title or interest from the portion in his specific possession, his vendee would be entitled to protect the portion so transferred, without however, asserting exclusive owner to the portion so transferred and possessed, till such time as the joint estate is not partitioned." It has come on record that partition proceedings have been initiated by the plaintiffs. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court that a revision at the instance of the defendant- appellant is pending before the learned Financial Commissioner in such proceedings. In view of the said fact, till such time the partition proceedings are finalized, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise construction on the entire frontage of the land abutting the road. Such construction will definitely affect the rights of the other co-owners. Even otherwise, the judgment referred to by learned counsel for the appellant runs counter to the judgment of Full Bench in Ram Chander's case (supra). In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration R.S.A.No.914 of 2007 4 of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 26.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE