RSA No. 729 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 729 of 2008 Date of decision: November 5,2008 Mohinder Singh and another ..Appellants. Versus Buta Singh and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the Appellants. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for separate possession of half share of the plaintiffs by partition by metes and bounds out of the property detailed in the head note of the suit has been decreed with costs. As per the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff along with the appellant(defendant No.1) and Surinder Kaur appellant No.2 purchased the land in dispute from Saristi Pal vide sale deed dated 23.3.1964 for a sum of Rs.3000/- in which he had half share and the remaining half share was in the ownership of appellants. It is further averred that after the purchase of suit land, construction as shown in the site plan was raised in Khasra No. 374. Since the plaintiff was not enjoying the full benefits out of the suit property, suit for partition was filed. Appellants/defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement raising various preliminary objections including that the suit is bad for partial partition. On merits, it was admitted that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 purchased the land comprised in Khasra No.374 but it was denied that suit property is part and parcel of khasra numbers. Defendants also claimed ownership of the property by way of adverse possession. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed RSA No. 729 of 2008 2 the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by declaring him owner to the extent of half share. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2.8.2007 passed by Additional District Judge(Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. Still not satisfied, the defendants Nos.1 and 2 have filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the property in question is part of Khasra No. 374 and the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove on record that the property in question is situated in Khasra No.374. It was further argued by the counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and decrees of the courts below are based on absolute non- consideration of facts and the evidence placed on record. The appellants have fully proved that they are in possession of the property and they have become the owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. However, I find no merit in his argument. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “ One of the defendant, when appeared into the witness box as DW1, he in very examination in chief has stated that he, Surinder Kaur and plaintiff purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 374 by way of registered sale deed dated 23.3.1964, and property in suit do not form part of khasra No.374, but in the cross-examination, he has specifically admitted the land in dispute was purchased by him, his wife and plaintiff by way of registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 3000/-. He has admitted the plaintiff as co-owner to the extent of ½ share whereas remaining half share is owned by him and by his wife. He has further admitted the construction was raised over RSA No. 729 of 2008 3 the property after it was purchased by them and the land purchased by them bears khasra No.374. He has also admitted the boundaries of the disputed property as shown in site plan, Ex.P2, he has stated that the boundary is in khasra No.136. From the cross-examination of defendant himself, it is proved that the property in dispute is part and parcel of khasra No. 374 and the plaintiff/respondent has half share in it. It was also proved that the construction was raised by vendees after purchase of banjar land.” Thus the lower Appellate Court has affirmed the findings of the trial Court on the basis of the statement of DW1( i.e., appellant No.1) wherein he has admitted that land in dispute was purchased by him, his wife and plaintiff by way of registered sale deed. He also admitted that the plaintiff-respondent is co- owner to the extent of half share. He has further admitted that the construction was raised over the property after it was purchased by them and the land purchased by them bears Khasra No.374. He has also admitted the boundaries of the disputed property as shown in the site plan Ex.P2. Thus from the statement of the defendant/appellant himself, it is proved that the property in dispute is part and parcel of Khasra No.374 and the plaintiff-respondent has half share in it. It was also proved that the construction was raised by vendees after purchase. The claim of the appellants being owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession was rightly rejected by the courts below.There is no evidence on record to show that the appellants are in exclusive possession of the property in suit to the exclusion of the plaintiff-respondent; rather copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98 Ex.P3 shows that parties are in joint possession as co-owners. It has also been admitted by Manjit Kaur, DW2 in the cross- examination that plaintiff-respondent is in possession of one room and one shop and he is using the same. It is well settled that when parties are co-owners in joint possession, the co-sharer cannot claim the adverse possession against the other co-sharer. RSA No. 729 of 2008 4 I am supported by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh and others Versus Gujjar Singh (dead) by LRs and others, 2002 (1) C.C.C. 548 (S.C.). It is well settled that possession of one co-sharer amounts to possession on behalf of other co-sharer unless there has been an ouster by denying title of other co-sharers. Thus, in view of the settled principles of law as stated above and a finding of fact recorded by the courts below on appreciation of evidence on the record to the effect that property in dispute is part and parcel of Khasra No.374 and the plaintiff-respondent has a half share in it and that the plaintiff-respondent is in joint possession of the same. I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 5, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE