-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 268 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 31, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 268 of 2010 (O&M). Joginder Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Surjit Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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.Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.784-C of 2010. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.268 of 2010. Joginder Singh (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 268 of 2010 (O&M). aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellant over one room measuring 13' x 13', a Verandah measuring 20' x 13' and Courtyard part of House No.65/7, on the ground floor situated in Mohalla Mir Kundla, Patiala, and further restraining the defendant- respondent from making any interference in the repair work of the roof and Verandah of the said room being made by the plaintiff was dismissed. However, the defendant-respondent was restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant from the said property. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that though the plaintiff claimed himself to be in possession over the property in dispute as a owner, but he did not place on record any document proving his ownership. While deposing in Court as P.W.1, plaintiff Joginder Singh stated that he was made to occupy the property in dispute by an officer of the Custodian Department on 5.5.1968. However, if the plaintiff occupied the disputed property in the manner he alleged, it did not vest in him any proprietary right qua it (disputed property). On the other hand, defendant proved his ownership over the property in dispute on the basis of Will executed in his favour by his mother Smt. Balwant Kaur on 26.1.1985. The property in -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 268 of 2010 (O&M). dispute was allotted to Smt.Balwant Kaur vide allotment letter Exhibit D.W.6/D. No doubt, the question whether the defendant is the exclusive owner of the property in dispute or not as there may be other heirs of Smt. Balwant Kaur, but the defendant is, of course, a co-owner of the disputed property and the plaintiff has no proprietary rights in the same. Both the Courts below have restrained the defendant-respondent from forcibly evicting the plaintiff-appellant from the property in dispute, but the plaintiff-appellant has not been allowed to make repairs / construction etc. in the said property. No fault can be found with the said findings of the Courts below. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 31, 2011. JUDGE ak