RSA No. 4401 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4401 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Jagmal Singh ........ Appellant Versus Tej Pal and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellant. JORA SINGH, J. Jagmal Singh-appellant, preferred this Regular Second Appeal, to challenge the concurrent findings of both the Courts' below. Appellant filed main suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that house in dispute situated in the revenue estate of village Dhanora Jattan, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, is jointly owned by the parties. Without partition respondents-defendants have no right to construct the boundary wall shown with red colour in the site plan. Allegation of the respondents is that respondents No. 1 and 2 are exclusive owners of the house in question. There was a family settlement amongst the parties. ` 1,50,000/- was paid to the appellant to purchase separate residential house. After going through the evidence on file, both the Courts' below held that house in question shown in the site plan is not joint. In RSA No. 4401 of 2011 (O&M) -2- fact, there was a family settlement. Appellant is residing separately. As per site plan, appellant is not clear as to what is the length, breadth and area of the house in question. Appellant is the real brother of respondents No. 1 and 2 and son of respondent No. 3-Puran Chand. As per appellant, respondents are going to construct boundary wall only shown with red colour in the site plan but with the construction of boundary wall by the respondents there is no obstruction to enter the house in question. If the case of the appellant is taken to be correct one even then there will be no obstruction for ingress or egress in the house in question. Evidence on file rather shows that appellant is residing separately since 1984. If the house is joint amongst the parties even then one of the co-sharer has no right to restrain the other co-sharer from raising the boundary wall keeping in view the safety of the inmates. Soul purpose of the appellant is to harass his father and brothers. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by both the Courts' below. No substantial question of law is involved and no scope for interference. For the reasons recorded above, instant Regular Second Appeal, without merits is dismissed. November 15, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE