IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3704 of 2006(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2009 Maghi Singh and others. Appellants Versus Kartar Singh and others. Respondents RSA No. 3725 of 2006 Gurdit Singh ...Appellant Versus Kartar Singh and others. Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for respondents. ---- AJAY TEWARI, J. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA No. 3704 of 2006 and 3725 of 2006 of 2006 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondents for declaration that they have become entitled to partition of land in dispute being co-sharers. The case of the appellants is that that property stood orally partitioned. Both the Courts, on consideration of facts, came to the conclusion that the plea of oral partition has not been established. The following questions have been proposed:- (a) Whether, the findings that the parties have not affected RSA No. 3704 of 2006(O&M) 2 private partition is based upon misreading of evidence and by ignoring material evidence on record? (b)Whether, the private partition not affirmed by revenue authorities, is not binding and can be ignored by any of the parties? (c) Whether, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek possession as co-sharers? (d) Whether the judgments and decrees, which are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence does not make it perverse? (e) Whether, the limitation to set aside an order of A.C. Ist grade is 3 years from the date of the order or not? It would be seen that question No. (a) is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to convince me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of evidence so as to make them liable for interference u/s 100 CPC. Once question No. (a) is answered against the appellants, question Nos. (b), (c ), (d) and (e) would also have to be answered against the appellants being only consequential questions. In this view of the matter, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, these appeals and the applications for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main cases have been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. October 29, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) poonam-II JUDGE