Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:- Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiffRaghbir Singh had filed a suit for grant of permanent injunctionagainst defendants Smt.Sona Devi and Smt.Ramratti on theaverments that the plaintiff and defendants are co-sharers in the suitland measuring 273 kanals 14 marlas situated at village Duloth,Tehsil and District Mohinergarh and in order to grab valuable portionof the joint land, the defendants want to raise construction over suchvaluable portion, which is adjacent to the road and can be used forresidential and commercial purposes; they also want to alienatespecific portion to which, they have no right. Feeling aggrieved, theplaintiff had brought suit in question. 2. On notice, both the defendants appeared and filed writtenstatements contesting the suit. Issues on merits were framed. Theparties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead their evidence. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trialCourt vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2014 dismissed the suit.A perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court goes to show thaton appreciation of the evidence adduced before it in light of thefactual and judicial position, it had been observed that as revealed byperusal of jamabandi for the year 2003-04, defendant No.1 is a cosharer in the suit property and vide sale deed No.1094 dated 6.8.2010Ex.DW3/B, she alienated her share to defendant No.2 and mutationEx.D2 reveals that defendant No.2 is the owner in possession of 7kanals 7 marlas of land. Reference to cross-examination of plaintiff,who appeared as PW1 has been given to the effect that wife of SundaRam had got share of her husband and now she has alienated the landto defendant No.2 Ramratti and now Ramratti is in possession of theland. He had admitted that all the co-sharers are in possession of theland as per their share. The plea taken by the defendants that land hasalready been partitioned was rejected for the reason that the samewas not got incorporated in the revenue record. He had admitted that all the co-sharers are in possession of theland as per their share. The plea taken by the defendants that land hasalready been partitioned was rejected for the reason that the samewas not got incorporated in the revenue record. The plaintiff wasnon-suited in light of the ratio of judgment Ram Chander Versus Bhim Singh and others, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 2 (P&H)(FB)dealing with rights and liabilities of the co-sharers in the joint landand in light of Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act providing that if anefficacious remedy is available then no injunction can be granted.The trial Court has also referred to judgment by this Court inKishan Singh Versus Sucha Singh,: 2008-2 Latest Judicial Reports663 to the effect that a suit for injunction is not maintainable wherethe plaintiff has equally efficacious remedy available and furtherremedy for getting share in joint property is partition and notinjunction. 4. When the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment anddecree passed by the trial Court went in appeal, he was unsuccessfulthere also and his appeal was dismissed by District Judge, Narnaulvide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2017 observing that findings ofthe lower Court do not call for interference and rather those wereaffirmed. 5. Being dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees passedby the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the present RegularSecond Appeal before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant besidesgoing through the record and I find that there is absolutely no meritin the appeal. 7. There is delay of 110 days in refiling of the appeal.Though an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation ofdelay has been filed. However, the reasoning given therein is notconvincing. On merits also, the appeal is bound to fail. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred tojudgment Ramdas Versus Sitabai & Ors., 2011(7) RCR(Civil) 9 bythe Apex Court wherein it was observed that as undivided share ofco-sharer may be a subject matter of sale, but possession cannot behanded over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned by metesand bounds amicably and through mutual settlement. However, thisjudgment does not help the appellant since the plaintiff himselfappearing as PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted the fact thatdefendant No.1 has got share of her husband and she has alienatedthe land to defendant No.2 Ramratti, who is in possession over theland. He also admitted that all co-sharers are in possession of land asper their shares. 9. However, thisjudgment does not help the appellant since the plaintiff himselfappearing as PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted the fact thatdefendant No.1 has got share of her husband and she has alienatedthe land to defendant No.2 Ramratti, who is in possession over theland. He also admitted that all co-sharers are in possession of land asper their shares. 9. As regards the judgments Ranjeet Singh Versus Dhan Singh and others, 2009(11) RCR(Civil) 377 and Amarjit Kaur Versus Bikram Singh and Anr., 2016(3) ICC 186, those do not findapplication to the present case due to different facts andcircumstances and the context in which such observations had beenmade. 10. As rightly observed by the Courts below the properremedy for the appellant/plaintiff is to go for partition, which he isnot availing. 11. The concurrent findings on the issues so recorded do notsuffer from any irregularity or illegality. The findings are affirmed.No fault is found with the judgments and decrees passed by theCourts below. Those are upheld. 12. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 13. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissedaccordingly.