RSA No.3199 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3199 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 10, 2011 Rajesh .....Appellant v. Phool Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 28.4.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Sonepat, accepting appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff, thereby decreeing the suit filed by him for permanent injunction restraining present appellant- defendant from excavating/removing earth/sand from the land in dispute and from changing the nature of the suit land, in any manner, till the land is partitioned by metes and bounds. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, both the parties are co-owners in possession of the land in dispute. The land has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that a co-owner cannot seek injunction against a co-owner and that possession of other co-owner is on behalf of all the co-owners. It is further contended that RSA No.3199 of 2011(O&M) -2- land in dispute is in exclusive possession of appellant-defendant and hence, it is contended that learned District Judge has committed illegality in accepting the appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff and thereby decreeing the suit filed by him. Learned first appellate Court has relied upon Ronki Ram v. Prem Saini and others, 2007(4) RCR 304 (P&H), wherein it was held by this Court that even if the parties are co-owners, injunction cannot be refused when change of nature of property is involved. A co-owner in possession of a specific portion of property is having a right to enjoy the same, in any manner, however, he cannot be permitted to change the nature of the property till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. Learned District Judge, Sonepat, passed decree against the present appellant- defendant only to the effect that he has been restrained from excavating/removing earth/sand from the suit land, which is an agricultural land and from changing its nature. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned first appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by the lower appellate court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this 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. 10.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge