In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1598 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:12.9.2011 Gurdeep Kaur .....Appellant v. Sukhchain Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 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: None for the appellant. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. Gurdeep Kaur-defendant (appellant herein) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees dated 16.12.1987 and dated 5.5.1987 respectively passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed to the effect that the defendant-appellant was permanently restrained from illegally and forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from suit land bearing Khasra No.52 (0-11), Khata/Khatauni No.60/87 as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85 of Village Fateh-Chak Jarai, Tehsil Tarn Taran, except in due course of law or without R.S.A. No.1598 of 1988 [2] getting the suit land partitioned. No one has appeared on behalf of the parties. After perusing the impugned judgments and records of the case, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It could not be found that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The case of the plaintiff-respondent before the Courts below was that he was owner in possession of the land in dispute and the defendant is threatening to dispossess him without any legal right, title or interest. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant took the stand before the Courts below that she was in possession of the suit land along with Jagtar Singh who also was initially made a defendant. In order to prove his ownership and possession over the land in dispute, the plaintiff placed on record Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Exhibit-P.1). In this Jamabandi, Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh and Sukhchain Singh (plaintiff) sons of Wadhawa Singh are recorded as co-sharers in suit land measuring 11 Marlas. The suit land is recorded to be in exclusive possession of Sukhchain Singh (plaintiff), co-sharer. On the other hand, the appellant placed on record sale deed (Ex. D.1), which shows that Karnail Singh son of Wadhawa Singh, who is one of the co-sharers, had sold the suit land measuring 11 Marlas to the appellant. It is recited in the sale deed that the vendor is owner of the suit land out of the joint Khata and that the possession has been delivered to the vendee/appellant. A perusal of the copy of the jamabandi shows that Karnail Singh, co-sharer was not in possession of any part of the suit land. Hence, he could not have delivered the possession of the suit land to the appellant, particularly, when no R.S.A. No.1598 of 1988 [3] partition has taken place between the co-sharers. The suit land has not been partitioned between the co-sharers by metes and bounds. Once the land was not partitioned, Karnail Singh had no right to sell the land to the purchaser i.e. the appellant by handing over the possession. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. September 12, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*