R.S.A. No.2025 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2025 of 2010 Date of Decision:22.07.2011 Gurjant Singh ......Appellant Versus Karamdeep Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is, that Karamdeep Singh @ Boota Singh minor son of Tar Singh-respondent No.1- plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Gurjant Singh son of Bhur Singh-appellant- defendant No.1(for brevity “the defendant”) from dispossessing him from the suit land, inter alia, pleading that Puran Singh was the owner and in exclusive possession and after his death, his widow Jasmail Kaur-respondent No.2-proforma defendant No.2 became the owner and in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. She executed a sale-deed bearing No.38 dated 07.04.2003 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the land in dispute. Consequently, she also delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since, then he is owner and in exclusive possession of the suit land. It was claimed that defendant No.1 intends to illegally dispossess him from the land in dispute, without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against defendant No.1, in the manner indicated hereinabove. R.S.A. No.2025 of 2010 2 2. The contesting defendant refuted the claim of the plaintiff and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, limitation, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. According to the contesting defendant that, neither the plaintiff, nor his vendor was in exclusive possession of the suit land. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues, depicted in its judgment, for proper adjudication and the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff. The parties to the litigation in order to substantiate their respective pleas, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 4. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 19.02.2009. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, Gurjant Singh- defendant No.1 filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009. 6. Appellant Gurjant Singh-defendant No.1 still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 8. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that, Puran Singh was the owner and in exclusive possession and after his death, his widow Jasmail Kaur-defendant No.2 became the owner and in exclusive possession of the land in R.S.A. No.2025 of 2010 3 dispute. She executed a sale-deed bearing No.38 dated 07.04.2003 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the land in dispute. She also delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since, then he is owner and in exclusive possession of the suit land. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, appellant- defendant No.1 is also a co-sharer in the suit property, so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, sans merit. 10. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff became the owner and in exclusive possession of the property in dispute by way of indicated sale-deed. Once, it is proved that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property, even if, defendant No.1 is a co-sharer in it, he(plaintiff) is entitled to protect his possession, until the joint property is legally partitioned. The defendant No.1 has only the remedy to file a suit for partition and he has no legal right to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the property in dispute in this relevant connection. 11. What is not disputed here is that the trial Court, taking into consideration his exclusive possession over the land in dispute, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court has upheld the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of defendant No.1 as well, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009, which in substance is, as under:- “This Court is of the opinion that the appellant is claiming himself to be a co-sharer and it cannot even be denied that said Karamdeep Singh is also co-sharer in the suit property as the sale of the property in his favour has been proved on record. Perusal of the written statement reveals that the execution of the sale deed by the vendor of the suit property in favour of the respondent No.1 has been admitted to be there. Now, it is required to be seen as to who is on better footing as both the appellant as well as respondent No.1, are the co-sharer in the same khewat. Concededly, the appellant is not shown to be in possession and the suit property in the revenue record. It has been shown to be in exclusive possession of Puran Singh, the grand father of Karamdeep Singh and his grand mother has sold her share to respondent No.1 and by now, Puran Singh has also concededly R.S.A. No.2025 of 2010 4 expired. Since the mutation does not confer any title and the appellant was not in possession of the suit property. On the analogy of the observations made in case 1981, P.L.J. Page-204 titled as Bharthu Ram Vs. Ram Sarup, a co-owner has interest in the whole property and also in every parcel. When as per record, the property in dispute was in exclusive possession of the grand father of the respondent No.1, then even if the date of death of grand father has not been brought on record. But, it is clear that the same legally shall be possessed of by non-else, but by his successor in interest.” 12. Meaning thereby, the Courts below, having scanned the relevant evidence in right perspective, have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is proved to be in exclusive possession and has a right to protect his possession over the suit land. Neither any question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, nor any other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 22, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE R.S.A. No.2025 of 2010 5 R.S.A. No.2025 of 2010 6