JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Suit seeking decree of permanent injunction regarding property in dispute filed by the plaintiff - Ram Deen through his legal representatives (now respondents through his LRs) was dismissed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Narnaul vide his judgment dated 06.05.1988. However, the appeal filed by the said plaintiff through his LRs was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, who vide his judgment dated 05.12.1991 set aside the judgment of trial Court and decreed the suit. Against this reversal, one of the defendants of the suit namely Suraj Bhan-appellant (now through his LRs) has approached this Court.

2. Trial Court Record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties have been referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. Land in dispute is khasra 468 (0-19) comprised in Khewat no.122/118 Khatauni No.166 situated in Village Begpur, District Narnaul as per the jamabandi for the year 1978-79 (Ex.P-1). It is not disputed amongst the parties that both of them along with others are co-sharers in the said land. The grievance of the plaintiff is that though parties to the suit along with other co-sharers are joint owners in possession, but defendants are bent upon to raise construction in the suit property by putting stones therein and by doing fencing etc., without having any right to do so, as defendants cannot take exclusive possession of the suit property by excluding the plaintiff and other co-sharers. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that by colluding with the Patwari Halka, defendant had succeeded in getting his name incorporated in the khasra Girdawari to show his exclusive possession over the suit property, without consent of the other co-sharers. With these averments, plaintiff prayed for decree of permanent injunction.

4. Defendant No.1-Suraj Bhan (appellant herein through his LRs) contested the suit and claimed his exclusive possession over the suit property since the time of consolidation. He further claimed that his boundary wall and chappar exist in the suit land, where he tethers his cattle and that nobody else is in possession of the suit property. Defendant also raised objection that plaintiff did not have the right to file the suit and to seek the decree of permanent injunction against the other co-sharer. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that defendant-appellant was in exclusive possession of the suit property, but the First Appellate Court reversed the said finding and decreed the suit.

6. Challenging the aforesaid reversal, it is contended by ld. counsel for the contesting defendant-appellant that the First Appellate Court has miss-appreciated the evidence on record to set aside the well-reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel has drawn attention towards Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 (Ex.D7) in order to contend that defendant-appellant (Suraj Bhan) is recorded to be in exclusive possession over the suit property. He further draws attention towards the report of the Local Commissioner (Ex.D4) to be read with the site plan (Ex.D5) prepared by him, revealing the exclusive possession of the defendant on the suit property.

It is argued that since defendant is in exclusive possession of the suit property, the other co-sharers have no right to seek the injunction. The contention is that when co-sharers are in possession of separate portions of the entire land by mutual consent and arrangement, their possession cannot be disturbed. Ld. counsel further submits that defendant-appellant is prepared to get the construction raised by him demolished at his own cost, in case plaintiff succeed in the partition to get the property in dispute.

7. To support his contention, ld. counsel for the appellant has relied upon following authorities: -

(i) Jangir Singh Vs. Naranjan Singh and oth