Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Appellant-defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are aggrieved of the findings rendered by the trial Court against them and upheld by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby they have been restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and his brothers, much less from dispossessing them from the following land:- Khewat No.34, Khatauni No.68/1, Khasra No.100//5 (6- 16), Khatauni No.69, Khasra No.50//25/2 (2-0), 59//5 (8-0), 6/1 (2-4), 100//19/1 (4-0), Khatauni No.70, Khasra Nos.100//18 (7-9), 23 (8-0), 24 (8-0), 25 (7-8), 109//2 (8-0), 3(8-0), 4(8-0), 5/1 (5-12), 7 (8-0), 8(8-0), 49//21/2 (2-0), 22/2 (0-15), 60//1 (8-0), Khatauni No.73, Khasra Nos.100//19/2 (4-0), 22 (8-0), Khatauni No.75, Khasra Nos.100/4 (5-19), situated at Village Kakrala, Tehsil Nabha as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000.
(2.) Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-defendants submits that it is the conceded position on record that the respondent-plaintiff along his brothers, namely, Gurdev Singh, Baldev Singh and Baghail Singh were the co-sharer and, therefore, injunction sought against the co-sharer was not maintainable. The entire emphasis of the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court was on khasra No.100//5 (6-16) and not on other khasra numbers, whereas the injunction was in respect of entire khasra number. As per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, against khasra No.100//5 (6-16), Khewat No.34, Paramjit Kaur is shown to be owner and, therefore, remedy if any for the respondent-plaintiff was to file a suit for partition and not for injunction. In support of his contention, has relied upon the ratio decidendi culled out by the Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 and Division Bench in Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh, 2000 (3) RCR (Civil) 70. He submits that under the garb of the aforementioned order, the respondent-plaintiff is bent upon to change the nature of the suit land and alienate the same and it will create multiplicity of the litigation and, thus, urges this Court to formulate the substantial questions of law as culled out in the memorandum of appeal.
(3.) Mr. S.S. Salar, learned counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff submits that as per the evidence brought on record, the respondent plaintiff has been found to be in exclusive possession of the property and, therefore, as per the exception carved out in Bhartu's case (supra), the co-sharer/owner, who is in exclusive possession of the property, can always seek the injunction and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Both the Courts, being the Courts of fact and law, after examining the jamabandi, khasra girdawari and revenue record threadbare, have found the exclusive possession, thus, prays for affirming the judgments and decrees under challenge and dismissal of the appeal.;