Regular Second Appeal No.1078 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1078 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 11,2009 Hari Ram and another ...........Appellants Versus Narender and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav,Advocate for the Appellants. Mr.J.S.Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction restraining defendants from making any type of interference in their property mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mohindergarh decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.2008. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2. “In brief case of plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is owner in possession of half share and plaintiffs No.2 to 8 are owners in possession of half share in equal shares of total land measuring 41 kanals 10 marlas comprised in rectangle and killa No.17//13(8-0), 14(8-0), 15(8-0), 16(8-0),17(8-0), Regular Second Appeal No.1078 of 2009 2 18//2(1-10) situated in area of village Maanpura, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh (hereinafter referred as the land in dispute) by way of order of partition dated 15.10.1991 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade Mahendergarh in partition petition No. 36/RNT dated 7.6.90 and DDR No.335 dated 12.2.99. The defendants have no concern whatsoever with the ownership and possession of the land in dispute. ` The defendants filed revision No. 187 ROR of 1993 before Financial Commissioner Haryana Chandigarh which has been dismissed on 1.3.99. The defendants forcibly and illegally without any right, title or interest are bent upon interfering into ownership and possession of plaintiffs over the land in dispute. The plaintiffs several times asked the defendants to desist from their evil act and design but they are adamant. Hence, the suit for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. 3.The defendants filed their joint written statement while contesting the suit and asserted that an appeal is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh about the land in dispute wherein an order of stay is passed. The plaintiffs have no concern whatsoever with ownership and possession of the land in dispute. The land in dispute is still joint property of the parties. The plaintiffs have filed the petition about share of Singh Ram son of Sheodan who died Regular Second Appeal No.1078 of 2009 3 unmarried issueless. He gave his share to the defendants during his life time and since then the defendants are coming owners in possession of the share of Singh Ram. The plaintiffs are very clever. They filed petition for partition of land measuring 145 kanals 9 marlas only instead of land measuring 4892 kanals 9 marlas wherein question of title was raised by the defendants. The plaintiff No.1 wrongly pleaded as adopted son of Singh Ram. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade Mahendergarh decided question of title vide order dated 30.7.91. The defendants filed appeal against the order dated 30.7.1991 before Collector Mahendergarh wherein vide order dated 6.9.91, the order dated 30.7.1991 was stayed. The appeal was decided by Collector Mahendergarh on 26.6.1993. The defendants filed a revision before Commission Gurgaon Division Gurgaon who decided the same on 26.7.2006. The defendants filed appeal before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh against the order dated 26.7.2006 passed by Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon wherein proceedings of partition were stayed but the Assistant Collector Ist Grade despite stay of proceedings continued the proceedings. Hence, the partition proceedings are illegal, null and void, liable to be set aside and ignored. The plaintiffs in collusion with revenue officials got prepared wrong revenue record showing delivery of possession of the land in dispute to them. The defendants filed a civil suit Regular Second Appeal No.1078 of 2009 4 titled Hari Ram vs. Narender etc. in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) Mahendergarh which is pending for 23.5.2008. In this way, the defendants were not heard in the partition proceedings. They were also not associated in delivery of possession of the land in dispute on the spot. They are still coming joint owners in possession of the land in dispute . All other allegations of the plaint are vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “i) Whether the plaintiffs are exclusive co-owners of the land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint measuring 41 kanals 10 marlas by way of partition affected by revenue authority and possession delivered to them on spot of these numbers?OPP ii) As plaintiffs are exclusive co-owners of above 41 kanals 10 marlas land by way of parition and there has been their exclusive possession over this property, so defendants have no concern with this property?OPP iii) If above said issues are proved in affirnative, whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from making any type of interference in the disputed property measuring 41 kanals 10 marlas?OPP iv) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD v) Whether the suit is time barred?OPD vi) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable?OPD Regular Second Appeal No.1078 of 2009 5 vii) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD viii) Relief" After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have held that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. Earlier, parties were joint owners in possession of the suit land along with some other land. Plaintiffs filed petition for partition of suit land as well as the other land owned by the parties. The said partition proceedings have attained finality and possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the plaintiffs vide rapat entry No.335 dated 12.5.1999. In support of their case, plaintiffs had already proved on record all the relevant documents. However, the defendants, on the other hand, had failed to establish that the partition proceedings have not attained finality. The finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below call for no interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 11, 2009 arya