IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3895 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16th August, 2011 Hakam Singh and others … Appellants Versus Jasvir Kaur and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs having lost in two rounds of litigation have approached this Court by instituting present regular second appeal. Vir Singh had six sons namely, Hakam Singh, Mehar Singh, Sukhmander Singh, Balwant Singh plaintiffs, and Basant Singh defendant No.1. Their another brother Makhan Singh had died issueless and his estate also fell to the share of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. During the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, an application for leading additional evidence was filed that only plaintiffs had succeeded to the estate of Makhan Singh on the basis of a Will made by him. That Will has not been relied upon. Aggrieved against the same, RSA No.866 of 2009 is pending in this Court. So far as the other suit and appeal are concerned, the grievance made by the plaintiffs was that their brother Basant Singh-defendant No.1 could not have sold 7 Kanals of land. Secondly, since no partition had taken place, defendant Regular Second Appeal No.3895 of 2010 (O&M) No.2 is not entitled to possession of the land. The grievance of the plaintiffs has been aptly noted by the trial Court as under: “(6) … … … The only grievances of the plaintiffs are that defendant No.1 has sold more than his share which is wrong & that no partition has taken place as such Def.No.2 is not entitled to possession of suit land. Def. No.1 & 2 claims that land falling to share of Def.No.1 has been sold & the land in possession of Def. No.1 became the property of Def.No.2 on the basis of sale deed as the possession of the same has been defined… … …” The trial Court while deciding issue No.1 as to whether the sale deed dated 5th December, 2001 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void; has held that defendant No.1 was well within his rights to convey his share in the land to the extent what was held by him. The Court further held that in case the plaintiffs are aggrieved, they can approach the appropriate authorities for partition of the land. Issues No.2 and 3 as to whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and whether they can seek permanent injunction or not, were also considered by the trial Court and it was held that since partition has not been effected as per the settled legal position, co-owners are in possession of each and every inch of the land and they can enjoy the property till its partition. Issue No.4 was decided in favour of defendant No.2. The Court held that he is the bonafide purchaser. The findings returned by the trial Court were assailed in an appeal. The lower appellate Court affirmed the findings given by the trial Court. 2 Regular Second Appeal No.3895 of 2010 (O&M) Mr.Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has admitted that the concurrent findings of fact are against them, however, he has stated that till the partition takes place defendant No.2 being purchaser of the land is not entitled to possession of the suit land. It is not in dispute that Basant Singh is co-owner of the land and he was well within his rights to sell his share of the land to defendant No.2. There is no challenge to the sale deed effected by Basant Singh-defendant No.1 in favour of Harnek Singh-defendant No.2. Therefore, Harnek Singh has succeeded to the estate of Basant Singh and has become co-owner of the suit property. The concurrent findings of fact that Harnek Singh has become co-owner of the land to the extent which was held by Basant Singh and he is also entitled to the suit land, are not required to be disturbed. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present regular second appeal; especially when no question of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised during the course of arguments for consideration of this Court; and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 16, 2011 rps 3