RSA No.731 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.731 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.02.2010. Fateh Singh and others .……Appellants Versus Smt. Omwati and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is regular second appeal by judgment-debtor No.1 and legal heirs of judgment debtor No.3, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below Suit filed by Prem Singh since deceased and now represented by respondent Nos.1 to 3, for partition was decreed and preliminary decree dated 15.06.2007 for partition was passed. It was inter alia stipulated in the preliminary decree that the Local Commissioner was to suggest mode of partition and while doing so, he would make every endeavour to maintain the possession of the parties over their respective share with regard to property Nos.2 to 9 shown in site plan Ex.P-2, as some of the shareholders have constructed their houses and deficiency in the share of any shareholder shall be made by adjusting vacant portion of the suit property and property No.1 which is in joint possession of the parties. Decree-holder Prem Singh filed application for preparation of final decree. Local Commissioner was appointed, who RSA No.731 of 2010 -2- submitted his report proposing mode of partition. Report of one Local Commissioner was set aside because both the parties were not satisfied. Another Local Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report dated 01.06.2009 suggesting the mode of partition as per preliminary decree. Appellant No.1 only filed objections against the report of the Local Commissioner. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar vide judgment dated 04.08.2009 accepted the report of the Local Commissioner and ordered preparation of final decree of partition in accordance therewith. First appeal preferred by the appellants herein has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that property No.5/2 and property No.7/2 have been alloted to Prem Singh and Kartar Singh by disturbing the possession of Kartar Singh and Rambir and this is in contravention of preliminary decree. The contention cannot be accepted because neither Prem Singh (represented by legal representatives) nor Kartar Singh (represented by legal representatives) nor Rambir is aggrieved by the mode of partition proposed by the Local Commissioner. In fact, name of Rambir does not even appear in the memo of parties. The appellants possibly can have no objection to the mode of partition on this ground, when the concerned cosharers have no objection to the same. RSA No.731 of 2010 -3- Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that appellant No.1 had constructed his house on property No.2, but the same has been alloted to Sumer Singh. However, no such contention appears to have been raised at the time of arguments before the lower Appellate Court. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid contention of the appellants. Both the Courts below have arrived at concurrent finding of fact that there is no merit in the objection preferred by appellant No.1 herein. The mode of partition proposed by Local Commissioner in his report dated 01.06.2009 has been found to be appropriate by both the Courts below. No ground for interference therein by this Court is made out. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 17.02.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE