Regular Second Appeal No. 2604 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2604 of 2007 Date of Decision: September 07, 2009 Rohtash ......... Appellant versus Smt. Shanti and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellant Shri Baldev Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for injunction in respect of land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas, was decreed. The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in his possession over the suit land on the strength of sale deed dated 25.10.1994 whereby specific Khasra number alone were sold to him i.e., comprised in Rectangle No. 101 Khasra Nos. 7 and 8 in favour of his wife. It has been found that defendant is not the owner of land comprised in Kills No. 100/10/2, 101/6. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. In appeal, learned First Appellate Court found that the appellant has failed to prove that he has become co-sharer qua the suit land comprised in Rectangle and Killa No. 100/10/2, 101/6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the wife of the Regular Second Appeal No. 2604 of 2007 [2] appellant has purchased ½ share of the suit land, therefore, injunction suit against the appellant is not maintainable without impleading his wife as a party. The plaintiff has sought injunction against the defendant fearing threat from him in respect of possession over the suit land. The wife of the defendant has purchased ½ share of land measuring 29 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in specific khasra number. Even if the sale is of specific khasra number, still the sale by a co-sharer is sale of a share only as held by Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 P.L.J. 204. Therefore, the right of the parties, including the wife of the appellant, is to seek partition to claim possession of the specific portion. The appellant has no independent title or interest except sale in favour of his wife. The appellant and/ or his wife were in possession of specific Khasra Numbers sold to her, as tenant prior to sale. Since the appellant and/or his wife were not in possession of the suit land prior to sale, he could not claim protection of possession merely on the basis of sale in favour of his wife. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below which may give rise to any substantial question of law for determination by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. September 07, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE