A purchaser of a plot does not automatically acquire ownership of structures on the plot, and in the case of joint holding, one co-sharer cannot claim injunction against other co-sharers.

Sneh Prashar, J.

The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by appellant-plaintiff Gurdeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar as well as judgment and decree dated 06.09.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.317 of 19.07.2010 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, by virtue of which suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant against respondents-defendants Kulwant Singh and others (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') was dismissed and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.

2. Appellant-Gurdeep Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering into his peaceful possession over the property/plot situated in the revenue estate of village Verka, the dimensions and boundaries of which were given in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') claiming to have purchased the said property vide registered sale deed dated 24.04.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 2,34,000/- from Varinder Singh and Simarjit Singh sons of Baldev Singh son of Zail Singh. It was pleaded that the suit property consists of a plot and two shops in the front side as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The water and electricity connection installed in the suit property was in his name and he had been regularly paying the bills. Mutation on the basis of the sale transaction had been sanctioned. The respondents had no right, title or interest in the suit property but were bent upon to interfere in his possession which necessitated filing of the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents. In the joint written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it was pleaded that the sale deed, which the appellant claims to be in his favour related to a plot and not to the shops. Out of the shops in question, one was under the tenancy of son of the appellant namely Ranjit Singh @ Rana who had been paying rent to their (respondents' mother) after the death of their father and the other shop was in possession of Yashpal as a tenant. The land was jointly owned by them, the vendor of the appellant and other co-sharers. The electricity connection/meter installed in the shops was in the name of their father (Jarnail Singh) and the appellant by concealing material facts had got the said meter removed and got installed a new meter in his name. The mutation was also said to have been wrongly sanctioned in favour of the appellant for which an order for correction of the same had been passed by the revenue authorities and the departmental enquiry had been initiated against the Area Patwari. It was also submitted that the vendors of the appellants were owners to the extent of 1 Marla 8 Sarsai land whereas sale deed in favour of the appellant was executed in respect of 6 Marlas land which was illegal and unauthorized.

4. Same, as above, were the pleas raised by respondent No.3 in a separate written statement filed by him.

5. On the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD.

3. Relief.

6. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their rival contentions.

7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2013.

8. The appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by learned first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2014 dismissed the appeal.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant Regular Second Appeal.

10. The submissions made by Mr. G.S. Nagra, learned counsel representing the appellant have been heard and record perused.

11. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was not disputed by the res