Surjit Singh, J.@mdashHeard and gone through the record.
2. Appellant filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondents-defendants from raising any construction on certain land, which was alleged to be joint of the parties or changing its nature, till partition of the property, by metes and bounds. Alternative relief of possession, by demolishing the construction, if any, which the respondents-defendants might succeed in raising during the pendency of the suit, was also sought.
3. Two Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that no construction was being raised by the respondents-defendants and that some construction had already been raised by them before institution of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff also stands dismissed, by the District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree.
4. No substantial question of law is involved.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that there was a prayer for mandatory injunction in the plaint and, therefore, relief of mandatory injunction should have been granted. In the plaint, relief of possession (in the alternative) had been sought by demolishing the structure, which the respondents might happen to raise during the pendency of the suit. Relief of possession cannot be granted, because according to the appellant-plaintiff''s own case, property is still joint and, so, he is not entitled to separate possession. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
