RSA No. 1853 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1853 of 2006 Date of Decision: 5.8.2009 Jaibir Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Ashok and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Amit Jain,Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from planting trees on specific portion of the suit land without getting the same partitioned was dismissed. The plaintiffs have also sought a restraint order against the defendants not to raise any construction or change the use of the land. It is the admitted case of the parties that the parties are joint owners, but are in exclusive possession of the specific portion and a private partition has been effected as is clear from the affidavit Exhibit DW/A, sworn in by Ashok Kumar, one of the defendants, who appeared as DW1. Even Jaibir Singh plaintiff has appeared as PW1 has also admitted oral RSA No. 1853 of 2006 (2) arrangement between the parties regarding separate cultivation of the suit land. There is no evidence in respect of any threatened construction by the defendants on the land in exclusive possession of the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the plantation of the trees in the land which is in exclusive possession of the parties, is against the terms of the oral partition, which permits the cultivation of the land only. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid argument. Plantation of trees in exclusive possession of the suit property is another facet of cultivation. Admittedly there is no evidence in respect of any threatened construction. Therefore, I do not find that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 5.8.2009 ds