Surinder Gupta, J. - (1.) Kuldip Singh, plaintiff-respondent, is admittedly in possession of the shop and chaubara in dispute and Courts below have decreed his suit and restrained defendants-appellants from interfering in possession of plaintiff over the shop and chaubara. Defendants-appellants have filed this regular second appeal challenging concurrent findings of Courts below.
(2.) In later part of the judgment parties will be referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' as per civil suit.
(3.) Learned counsel for appellants has assailed decreeing of suit of plaintiff on the grounds as follows:- (i) Parties are co-sharers in the suit property, as such, suit is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied on judgments passed in Pahalwan Chand v. Hans Raj and others, 2012 (1) Civil Court Cases 466 (P&H) , Balwinder Singh v. Gurcharan Singh and others, 2010 (4) Civil Court Cases 005 (P&H) and Ranukanta Mullaiah v. Sircilla Rajamma and another, 2007 (1) Civil Court Cases 384 (A.P.) . (ii) Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that suit property fell to his share in family settlement but the same was not proved. (iii) Plaintiff sought the relief only qua the shop but Courts below allowed him the relief of injunction qua the shop as well as chaubara. (iv) The disputed property is in possession of Gurudwara Sahib and this fact has not been looked into by Courts below.;