RSA No. 4196 of 2010 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4196 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2011. Kartar Kaur .......Appellant Vs. Satnam Kaur and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering in her peaceful possession over the suit property. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that she was owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share. The land was jointly owned by the co-sharers and had not been partitioned by competent authority. Defendant No.2 had sold 1/3rd share measuring 8 Kanals 5.5 Marlas to defendant No.1 without getting the land partitioned. Now, the defendant No.1 was claiming more share than she was entitled to. On 10.6.2006, defendant No.1 along with 5-6 unidentified persons had come to the suit property and had tried to take possession from the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was RSA No. 4196 of 2010 (O&M) - 2- filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1, in her written statement, admitted the factum of purchase of 8 Kanals 5.5 Marlas of land from defendant No.2. However, the other contentions in the plaint were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant is in possession of suit land and defendant is trying to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2009, Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in an appeal filed by the plaintiff, by District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. RSA No. 4196 of 2010 (O&M) - 3- Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 were not in possession of the suit property. In this regard, reliance was placed on the entries in the jamabandi Ex. P-1, wherein the parties were shown to be joint owners of the suit property. However, Joga Singh was described to be in possession of the suit property. Since, the plaintiff had failed to establish that she was in exclusive possession of the suit property, the relief of permanent injunction could not be granted to her. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 10, 2011 Gurpreet