JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) :- CM No. 4237.C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 125 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. RSA No. 1425 of 2010 This is second appeal by Piyara Singh defendant no. 1. 2. Respondent no. 1 Pargat Singh filed suit against appellant and Chandi Ram respondent no. 2 for permanent injunction alleging that plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is owner in possession of the suit property measuring 1 kanal comprised of khasra no. 91/85 min having purchased it from Avtar Krishan vide registered sale deed dated 7.6.2004. The suit property includes a room constructed in it. Defendants threatened to interfere in ownership and possession of the plaintiff over suit property. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from raising construction thereon. 3. Defendants failed to appear and defend the suit in spite of service and were proceeded ex parte in the trial court. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.2007 dismissed the suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed and defendants have been restrained from interfering in ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1 has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that appellant-defendant no. 1 is in possession of the suit land for the last 40 years and he had raised construction over it ten years ago. The contention has been noticed simply to be rejected being devoid of any substance. There is neither any pleading nor any material on record to substantiate this contention. As noticed hereinabove, the defendants were proceeded ex parte in the trial court and therefore, there is neither any pleading on their behalf nor any evidence. Consequently, the aforesaid contention has no merit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that plaintiff’s vendor Avtar Krishan was in joint possession of the suit land alongwith other co-sharers and therefore, actual physical possession thereof could not be delivered to the plaintiff. Consequently, the aforesaid contention has no merit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that plaintiff’s vendor Avtar Krishan was in joint possession of the suit land alongwith other co-sharers and therefore, actual physical possession thereof could not be delivered to the plaintiff. The contention cannot be accepted. Had defendants been co-sharers in joint possession with the vendor, then this plea could have been raised. Defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit land and therefore, the plaintiff even as co-sharer in joint possession of the suit land can seek injunction against the defendants who are utter strangers qua the suit land. Moreover, perusal of the sale deed Ex. P3 as shown by learned counsel for the appellant reveals that actual physical possession of the suit land was delivered by the vendor to the plaintiffpurchaser whereas only symbolic possession of another 1 kanal land which was under tenancy of Kartar Singh was given to plaintiff who had purchased 2 kanals in all including suit land measuring 1 kanal. Only 1 kanal land which is not subject matter of the suit was under tenancy of Kartar Singh. Therefore, only symbolic possession thereof was delivered to the plaintiff vendee. However, suit land measuring 1 kanal was said to be in exclusive possession of the vendor and its actual physical possession was delivered to the vendee plaintiff. Other co-sharers may assail the said recital in the sale deed, but defendants cannot challenge the same as defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. 8. Plaintiff’s evidence oral and documentary stands un-rebutted and there is nothing on record to doubt the same. Said evidence is sufficient to prove the plaintiff’s case. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the finding of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land. The suit has been rightly decreed injuncting defendants from interfering in ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ----------------