JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against judgment and decree dated 16.10.2009 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 60/2007. 2. “Key facts" necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiffs' for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' for convenience sake). According to the averments made in the plaint, suit land is joint between the parties and nature of land is agricultural and near the Abadi and constitutes best and valuable portion of the land. Defendants are threatening to raise the construction over the suit land to cover the more area than their share and further to cover best and valuable portion of the land. Defendants were asked not to raise construction without partition but they did not desist from unlawful acts. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants. Entries in the revenue record showing suit land to be joint inter se parties were not disputed. However, it was admitted that the defendants were raising construction over a small portion of suit land and same had been partitioned and coshareres are already in possession of their respective land. They started raising construction of two rooms set over Khasra No. 64 only and the foundations had been laid prior to filing of the suit in presence of the plaintiffs and they had not objected to it. 4. Replication was filed. Issues were framed by the trial Court on 11.2.2003. Suit was dismissed on 19.6.2007. Plaintiffs filed an appeal before Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur. He allowed the same on 16.10.2009. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. The Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 2.12.2009, on the following substantial question of law: Whether a co-sharer in exclusive possession is entitled to use and raise construction over the land in his possession, particularly when the same is not in excess of his share and more particularly when the construction proposed is only fractional i.e. 190 marlas out of 70 kanals 19 marlas?” 6. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree passed by trial Court. 7. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgment and decree rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur dated 16.10.2009. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree passed by trial Court. 7. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgment and decree rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur dated 16.10.2009. According to him, no partition has taken place inter se the parties. According to the revenue entries, suit land was joint between the parties. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 9. PW-1 Kuldip Singh has deposed that in suit land measuring 70 Kanal 19 Marla, Kailash Devi was also owner of the same. Kailash Devi has raised construction over the suit land. He reported the matter to the Gram Panchayat. Defendants did not stop the construction. He denied that any private partition had taken place. 10. PW-2 Anil Jaswal has proved report Ext. PW-2/A He was sent as a local commissioner. He has recorded statement of Patwari vide Ext. PW-3/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has told the defendants orally about his visit to the spot. 11. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar has proved report Ext. PW-3/A. 12. PW-4 Jugal Kishore deposed that he was Pradhan from 1991 to 2001. He visited the spot. 13. DW-1 Pritam Chand deposed that he was owner of the suit property. Kailash Devi is his mother. He was holding General Power of Attorney of Kailash Devi. He proved photocopy of General Power of Attorney Ext. DW-1/A. Disputed land is measuring 70-72 Kanal. Consolidation took place in 1980-82. Private partition has taken place. House has been constructed over Khasra No. 64. It measures 11 Kanal. House was constructed by him in 1995-96. He also admitted that he was restrained from raising construction. He also admitted that lawyer has visited the spot and they were present. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-2/C. He has constructed four rooms, one latrine and bathroom. In his further cross-examination he has categorically admitted that the land was still joint. 14. DW-2 Piar Chand deposed that he was engaged as a labourer in 1995-96. House was completed in 1996. 15. According to revenue entries for the year 1993-94, Ext. P1, suit land is joint inter se the parties alongwith other cosharers. There is no specific averment made which of the Khasra number and area is falling in the share of which cosharer. House was completed in 1996. 15. According to revenue entries for the year 1993-94, Ext. P1, suit land is joint inter se the parties alongwith other cosharers. There is no specific averment made which of the Khasra number and area is falling in the share of which cosharer. In case private partition had taken place, same was required to be intimated to the revenue officials. Rather, as noticed herein above, Pritam Chand has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that suit land was joint between the parties. Statement was recorded on 23.3.2006. PW-1 Kuldip Singh has deposed that suit land is joint inter se the parties alongwith others. Defendants have not produced any record pertaining to private partition. There is only self-serving statement of DW-1 in his examination-in-chief that the suit land was partitioned. Defendants have not led any evidence that they were in physical possession of a particular piece of land. PW-2 Anil Jaswal has proved report Ext. PW-2/A dated 13.7.1998. Paras 3, 4 and 6 of the same are reproduced herein below: “3. The spots in disputes were identified by the parties and the Patwari present at the spot. On the spot, there was construction over two Khasra numbers, i.e. Khasra No. 64 min and 70 min. 4. On the Khasra No. 64 min. fresh foundations of six rooms were laid down by the respondents which is not of more than 2 or 3 days. The measurements of the foundations are as follows: (A) 12 x 10 feet (B) 14x 14 feet (C) 10 x 12 feet (D) 12 x 9 feet (E) 12 x 9 feet (F) 9 x 14 feet 6. On the another spot which is in Khasra No. 70 min, there was uncompleted construction of house on pillers. Measurement is as follows: - Total length of the house is 12 feet and width is 9 feet. Room ‘A’ was uncompleted. There was no plaster on its walls. Room ‘B’ was totally completed, toilet ‘C’ and kitchen ‘D’ was also completed. I was helpless to measure the length and width of room, kitchen and toilet because they were filled by the luggage /other belongings. There was no plaster on the outer surroundings of construction. Most of the portion was lying vacant of the construction. Room ‘B’ was totally completed, toilet ‘C’ and kitchen ‘D’ was also completed. I was helpless to measure the length and width of room, kitchen and toilet because they were filled by the luggage /other belongings. There was no plaster on the outer surroundings of construction. Most of the portion was lying vacant of the construction. Towards the Western side of the house, wall of fresh pucca bricks was installed which is 33 feet in length and 2 ½ feet in height. Surroundings of the house crops was sown. At the spot plaintiff Tarsem, Baldev Singh gave me statements but defendant Surinder Singh did not make statement. Patwari Dev Raj of that Halqua also furnished his statement.” 16. According to report, defendants have raised construction of not more than 2-3 days old as of 13.7.1998. Spot was visited in the presence of the parties. Statements of a few parties were also recorded. Dev Raj, Patwari Halqua verified Khasra No. 64 and 70. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar proved report Ext. PW-3/A dated 6.7.1998, which shows that even Panchayat members visited the spot and had found disobedience of orders passed by Senor Sub Judge, Hamirpur. Defendants went ahead with the construction and raised foundation of three rooms and dug foundation of three rooms and digging work was going on. PW-4 Jugal Kishore has proved report Ext. PW-3/A. PW-1 Pritam Chand has deposed falsely that the construction was already raised before filing of the suit in 1996. Local Commissioner has observed that construction was 2-3 days old when he visited the spot on 23.7.1998. Defendants could not raise construction over the suit land till it was partitioned. They have failed to prove that they were in occupation of a particular chunk of land. They have raised construction despite the stay operating against them. 17. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 18. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.