RSA No. 3865 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3865 of 2003 Decided on : 16-01-2009 Baljit Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Sukhdev Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the appellant. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 17.1.2003 by which the finding of the learned Trial Court had been reversed. The appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession. It was pleaded that he is in exclusive and separate possession of the suit property and that the respondents were bent upon raising construction over the suit property. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as co- sharer? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP. RSA No. 3865 of 2003 2 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? If so, its effect? OPD. 4. Relief. On appraisal of the evidence before it the Trial Court came to the conclusion that Kapoor Singh, father of plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit property and therefore, the respondents who had placed bricks etc. on the disputed property were not entitled to interfere in the possession of the appellant and decreed the suit. In appeal, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the separate and exclusive possession of the property which was joint has not been established by the appellant and reversed the findings of the learned Trial Court by relying on the Full Bench judgement of this Court reported as 1981 PLJ 204 (P&H) titled as Bhartu versus Ram Srup to hold that since the property was joint and had not been partitioned and the appellant could not be granted an injunction against the co-sharers. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the First Appellate Court dated 17.1.2003 to contend that Kapoor Singh was in exclusive possession which was reflected in the revenue entries and therefore the finding regarding joint property is incorrect. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is without any merit. Kapoor Singh is predecessor-in-interest of the appellant and the respondents. If he was in exclusive possession of the property it does not imply that subsequent successors would also have distinct share in that property. The same either has to be established by way of partition or by their conduct. There is no evidence to suggest that the parties were in separate and exclusive RSA No. 3865 of 2003 3 possession of areas out of this property to the exclusion of the other co- sharers. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Court cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal. Dismissed. January 16 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge