JUDGMENT R.L Anand J. - Unsuccessful plaintiffs in the trial Court have filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1990 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1990, passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. Shri Bhagat Ram, Shri Bhupinder Singh, Shri Darshan Singh and Shri Harvinder Singh son of Shri Ram Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against Shri Bant Singh alias Bant Dass and Ram Singh son of Bhagat Ram restraining Bant Singh alias Bant Dass from disturbing the actual physical possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 104 Kanals 11 Marlas as per entry in the jamabandi for the year possession of the years 1982-83, fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. 3. The case set up by the plaintiff is that Bhagat Ram and Pritam Singh were co-owners to the extent of 2/3rd shares in land measuring 104 Kanals 11 Marlas. Pritam Singh died. Mutation No. 1991 was sanctioned in favour of Bhupinder Singh, Darshan Singh and Harvinder Singh sons of Ram Singh. Bhagat Ram and Pritam Singh were in actual physical possession of the land measuring 104 kanals 11 marlas. After the death of Pritam Singh, Bhagat Ram, Bhupinder Singh etc. came in actual physical possession of land measuring 104 Kanals 11 marlas. Bant Singh alias Bant Dass defendant was claiming that he had obtained decree for declaration and joint possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in land measuring 104 Kanals and 11 Marlas against Ram Singh defendant and that he had obtained joint posession of the land measuring 104 Kanals and 11 Marlas to the extent of 1/3rd share. Ram Singh defendant has also filed an appeal against the judgment and decree in the High Court. Bant Singh alias Bant Dass got mutation No. 2065 sanctioned in his favour of 1/3rd share. On the strength of that decree and mutation, Bant Singh alias Bant Dass is trying to forcibly enter possession of land measuring 104 kanals 11 marlas to the extent of 1/3rd share and he does not want to come through the exercise of partition. 4. On the strength of that decree and mutation, Bant Singh alias Bant Dass is trying to forcibly enter possession of land measuring 104 kanals 11 marlas to the extent of 1/3rd share and he does not want to come through the exercise of partition. 4. The suit was contested by Shri Bant Dass alias Bant Singh urging that 1/3rd share of Pritam Singh had not devolved upon Bhupinder Singh etc. He is close heir of Pritam Singh and has inherited his estate. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in collusion with Ram Singh defendant Bhagat Ram is Ram Singhs father while Bhupinder Singh etc. are Ram Singhs sons. Ram Singh defendant had fabricated sale deeds touching the land belonging to him. He filed a suit challenging those sale deeds. The suit was decreed in his favour. Appeal of Ram Singh was dismissed by the District Judge, Ludhiana. Ram Singh filed an appeal which is pending before the High Court. Ram Singh had prayed for the stay of dispossession. His prayer was declined by the High Court. Ram Singh was not the co-owner. The area in his possession is the area the possession of which he took illegally after the sale. The plaintiffs are claiming ownership on the basis of fraud and fictitious Will of Pritam Singh alias Pritam Dass who did not execute any Will. Bhagat Ram is the owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. Bant Singh is the owner to the extent of 2/3rd share i.e. 1/3rd share in his own right and 1/3rd share inherited by him from Pritam Singh alias Pritam Dass. Land measuring 104 Kanals 11 Marlas was in possession of all the three co-sharers i.e. Bhagat Ram, Pritam Dass and Bant Dass. Land was joint shown in the revenue record. It was in separate cultivating possession of Bhagat Ram, Pritam Dass and Bant Dass. The instant suit has been filed by Bhagat Ram and his grand sons in order to usurp the land of the share of the defendant. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Relief. 6. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.3.1990 holding that the plaintiffs have no cause of action in their favour as there is no threat of dispossession. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Relief. 6. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.3.1990 holding that the plaintiffs have no cause of action in their favour as there is no threat of dispossession. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the first appellate Court and vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.8.1990, the appeal was dismissed by the first appellate Court for the reasons given in paras No. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of its judgment, which are reproduced as under :- "8. In jamabandi Ex. P.1 for the year 1982-83, Pritam Singh ss/o Nasib Chand son of Sadhu Ram, Bhagat Ram son of Sadhu Ram, Ram Singh son of Bhagat Ram are shown as co-owners in equal shares of the land measuring 104K 11M. Earlier in place of Ram Singh, Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was co-owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. Ram Singh set two sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Bant Singh alias Bant Dass in his favour in respect of that land. Bant Singh alias Bant Dass filed suit for declaration and joint possession against Ram Singh son of Bhagat Ram challenging these sale deeds. That suit was decreed for declaration and joint possession by Shri S.S. Gupta Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana and those sale deeds were found to have been the result of fraud etc. and not backed by any consideration. Ram Singh went in appeal and his appeal was dismissed by Shri J.S. Sekhon, District Judge, Sekhon vide judgment Ex.D.1. In execution of that decree Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was put in joint possession of 1/3rd share of land measuring 104 Kanals 11 marlas. Ram Singh had gone in second appeal to the Honble High Court; where his prayer for stay of dispossession had been refused. 9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for Bhagat Ram etc. that Bhagat Ram and Bhupinder Singh etc. are in possession of the entire land measuring 104 kanals 11 Marlas as co-sharers. They have 2/3rd share in the land measuring 104 Kanals 11 Marlas. If Bant Singh alias Bant Dass means to dispossess them and get possession of his 1/3rd share, he can do so only through partition. that Bhagat Ram and Bhupinder Singh etc. are in possession of the entire land measuring 104 kanals 11 Marlas as co-sharers. They have 2/3rd share in the land measuring 104 Kanals 11 Marlas. If Bant Singh alias Bant Dass means to dispossess them and get possession of his 1/3rd share, he can do so only through partition. A co-sharer, in possession can remain in possession of the whole joint land and the remedy of the co-sharer not in possession is partition. 10. Ram Singh was predecessor-in-title of Bant Singh alias Bant Dass. In Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Pritam Singh, Bhagat Ram and Ram Singh are shown to be co-owners in land measuring 104 Kanals 11 Marlas out of land measuring 104 K 11M, land measuring 26 K. 2 M is shown to be in exclusive hisedari possession of Ram Singh. If that was so, it can be taken that earlier Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was in exclusive hiedari possession of 26K-2M of land and after the sales set up by Ram Singh son of Bhagat Ram, he stepped into possession of this 26 K-2 M of land. 11. Bant Singh alias Bant Dass is equal co-owner with Bhagat Ram etc. in land measuring 104 K-11 M in khasra girdawari Ex. P.2 and P3, Pritam Singh, Bhagat Ram and Ram Singh are shown to be Khudkasht of some land. In some land Ram Singh is shown in exclusive hisedari possession. When Bant Singh alias Bant Dass is a co-owner no injunction can be granted in favour of Bhagat Ram and Bhupinder Singh etc. the effect of which would be the ouster of Bant Singh alias Bant Dass from joint possession of the land. 12. Bhagat Ram etc. have not come with clean hands. Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was co-owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. Pritam Singh alias Pritam Dass was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. Bupinder Singh etc. s/o Ram Singh son of Bhagat Ram set up will said to have been executed in their favour by Pritam Dass and his 1/3rd share was mutated in their names. Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was an irritant left. To exclude him, Ram Singh s/o Bhagat Ram and father of Bhupinder Singh etc. set up sale deeds. Bupinder Singh etc. s/o Ram Singh son of Bhagat Ram set up will said to have been executed in their favour by Pritam Dass and his 1/3rd share was mutated in their names. Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was an irritant left. To exclude him, Ram Singh s/o Bhagat Ram and father of Bhupinder Singh etc. set up sale deeds. At the instance of Bant Singh alias Bant Dass, those sale deeds were set aside and he was held entitled to joint possession by the Court of District Judge. Ram Singh is in second appeal before the Honble High Court. His prayer for stay of dispossession has been refused by the Honble High Court. By claiming injunction Bhagat Ram, Bhupinder Singh etc. are attempting to set at naught, the said decree obtained by Bant Singh alias Bant Dass. If this injunction is granted in favour of Bhagat Ram etc. the non-grant of stay of dispossession to Ram Singh by the Honble High Court would become in the context meaningless." 8. Not satisfied with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 9. I have heard Shri D.S. Chahal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri R.C. Setia, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 10. Before I proceed further into the matter, I may mention that vide my separate order of even date, passed in RSA No. 2164 of 1985, filed by Shri Ram Singh, the appeal of said Ram Singh filed against Shri Bant Singh has been dismissed and I have held that the sale deeds dated 4.6.1975 allegedly executed by Bant Singh alias Bant Ram in favour of Shri Ram Singh are forged documents and without consideration. With the dismissal of that appeal the fate of the present appeal would also be the same. 11. In the Jamabandi Ex. P.1 for the year 1982-83 Pritam Singh son of Nasib Chand son of Sadhu Ram, Bhagat Singh son of Sadhu Ram, Ram Singh son of Bhagat Ram have been shown as co-owners in the land measuring 104 Kanals 11 Marlas. Earlier in place of Ram Singh, Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was co-owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. P.1 for the year 1982-83 Pritam Singh son of Nasib Chand son of Sadhu Ram, Bhagat Singh son of Sadhu Ram, Ram Singh son of Bhagat Ram have been shown as co-owners in the land measuring 104 Kanals 11 Marlas. Earlier in place of Ram Singh, Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was co-owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. Ram Singh set up two sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Bant Singh alias Bant Dass in his favour. Bant Singh challenged those sale deeds and filed a suit for declaration and joint possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal of Shri Ram Singh was also dismissed by the Court of District Judge vide judgment Ex. X.1 holding that the sale deeds were the result of fraud. Meaning thereby that Bant Singh alias Bant Dass was put in joint possession of 1/3rd share of the land measuring 104 Kanals 11 marlas. In this manner, the possession of defendant in the land in question becomes as a co-sharer and he cannot be deprived of enjoying the fruits of the land in the capacity of a co-sharer. If the plaintiffs are allowed to get the injunction, it will amount to an attempt to set at naught the decree for declaration and joint possession obtained by Shri Bant Singh. 12. I have already held by dismissing the appeal (R.S.A. No. 2164 of 1985) filed Shri Ram Singh that a decree in favour of Shri Bant Singh alias Bant Dass passed against Shri Ram Singh, is valid. 13. In this view of the matter, this appeal has to go and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.