RSA No.3198 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3198 of 2010 Date of Decision: 03.12.2010. Randhir Singh .....Appellant Versus Manohar Lal ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Randhir Singh, having failed in both the Courts below, is in second appeal. Appellant-plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit property depicted by letters 'ABCD' in the site plan. Previously plaintiff's father was owner in possession thereof. On east thereof, there is house owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The suit property is being used as 'Bara' by the plaintiff for tethering cattle etc. There is also a door at points DE depicted in the site plan. Defendant has no concern with the ownership and possession of the suit property. However, the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom. Accordingly, permanent injunction was claimed by the plaintiff. After institution of the suit, the defendant on 28.05.2000 blocked the passage of the plaintiff for use of the suit property by closing the door. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction for the same. RSA No.3198 of 2010 -2- The defendant denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that plaintiff has no concern with the suit property. Kartar Singh, Zora Singh, Gulab Kaur and the Lambi Cooperative Marketing Society ( in short, the Society) were cosharers in 5 kanals 10 marlas land of which the suit land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas is part. Dalip Singh and Zora Singh, who were owners of the suit land, sold the same to the Society vide two registered sale deeds dated 07.01.1976 and since then, the Society is owner in possession thereof. Plaintiff's father Kartar Singh was also cosharer in the joint land measuring 5 kanals 10 marlas. It was also pleaded that the suit has been filed against Manohar Lal by name, who is Manager of the Society, but suit should have been filed against the Society and not against the Manager by name. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gidderbaha vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly father of the plaintiff-appellant was co-sharer in the joint land of which the suit land is a part and the said joint land has not yet been partitioned and, therefore, the defendant cannot take forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiff-appellant. The RSA No.3198 of 2010 -3- contention is completely misconceived and untenable. The plaintiff- appellant has miserably failed to prove that he is in exclusive possession of the suit land. Even if plaintiff appellant may have become cosharer in the suit land on the death of his father who was co-sharer therein, even then the plaintiff cannot seek permanent injunction without proving his exclusive possession over the suit property. The plaintiff has, however, failed to prove the same. Consequently, he is not entitled to permanent injunction. As regards mandatory injunction regarding closure of the door, the plaintiff alleged that the door was closed on 28.05.2000. However, his witnesses stated on 27.07.2004 that the door was closed about 2 or 2 ½ years back i.e in the year 2002. This evidence falsifies the version of the plaintiff-appellant regarding closure of the door. There is also another fatal infirmity in the case of the plaintiff-appellant. It is the Society which is co-sharer in the joint land. It is the Society which is asserting its possession over the suit land. However, the plaintiff-appellant in spite of objection by defendant in the written statement did not implead the Society as party to the suit. In the absence of the Society being party to the suit, the plaintiff appellant could not succeed. The suit could not have been filed against Manohar Lal by name, who is only Manager of the Society. On the other hand, the Society had to be sued. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant appeal. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence and come to concurrent finding against the plaintiff-appellant. The said RSA No.3198 of 2010 -4- finding is justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 03.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE