1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3374 of 2008 (O&M). Date of Decision: 19.3.2009 *** Satbir Singh & Anr. .. Appellants VS. Prem Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The plaintiffs filed the suit with the averments that their father Hardeva and his brother Puran were joint owners of the suit land and they mutually partitioned the same on 27.9.1979 and mutation No. 5089 dated 6.6.1986 was recorded to that effect and further Puran also filed an application for partition and correction of khasra girdawaris before the revenue authorities but before that application could be decided Puran expired. It was their further case that after the death of their father as well as Puran, their legal representatives succeeded to their respective shares, but the revenue record was not mutated in their favour, as a result of which the LRs of Puran sold out specific field numbers, which in fact were allotted to them in partition, to subsequent vendees i.e. defefndants No.3 to 10 vide different sale-deeds. Thus, it was prayed that the said sale-deeds and subsequent mutation entered on the basis thereof are illegal and the defendants be restrained from raising any construction over the suit land. The stand of the defendants was of denial as to the factum of mutual partition vide writing dated 27.9.1979, which according to them was a result of fraud, fabrication and is an un-registered document. Moreover, the said application for partition and khasra girdawari entries was dismissed by the revenue authorities for want of prosecution. The suit as well as appeal has been dismissed respectively by 2 the learned Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate court. As a consequence, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, “the Code”). It is apparent that on the basis of revenue record it has been held that plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2, after the death of their predecessors-in-interest namely Hardeva and Puran were put in joint possession of some of the joint land and were in separate exclusive possession in respect of the remaining joint land. Their plea of partition on the basis of writing dated 27.9.1979 was not believed on the ground that neither Hardeva nor Puran, during their lifetime got it entered in the revenue record; mutation No.5089 dated 6.6.1986 was though entered, but not sanctioned by the competent authority; the said writing dated 27.9.1979 remained un-registered and Ram Singh son of Preet Singh, who allegedly attested the said writing was never produced in the witness box and thus, rightly was discarded by the Courts below. It has further been found that the sale made vide sale-deeds Ex.P19 to P-27 in favour of defendants No.3 to 10 were not of specific khasra numbers and the vendees of the impugned sale-deeds by dint of the said sale become the co-owners of the entire joint land as well as part of joint land which was exclusively in possession of successors of Hardev and while relying upon the case of Bachan Singh Vs. Swaran Singh 2000(2) LJR 806, it has rightly been held that a co-sharer cannot seek injunction against another co-sharer who was in joint possession and since the plaintiffs failed to impeach the impugned sale- deeds, their suit was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. This Court is of the considered view that no interference of this Court is warranted in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence, which has been analyzed in detail by the Courts below. It is well settled that this Court cannot, on re-appreciation of evidence, record a conclusion different than the one recorded by the Courts below Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 19,2009 Jiten