IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1306 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.3.2009 Ranjit Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Ajmer Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the appellants. .... MAHESH GROVER, J. Delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal has been preferred by few of the defendants who were arrayed in a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 seeking separate possession by way of partition regarding 1/4th share in the houses and compound and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants arrayed in the suit from alienating, transferring or changing the nature of the suit property. Both the Courts had decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. It is to be noticed that Ajmer Singh is the plaintiff who filed a suit against six persons, namely, Joginder Singh, Veer Singh, Ranjit Singh, Gurjant Singh, Nirmal Singh and Dalbir Singh. The suit was contested only by Joginder Singh whereas rest of the persons, who were arrayed as defendants, had admitted the claim R.S.A. No. 1306 of 2009 (O&M) -2- of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. The present appeal has been filed by the set of defendants who had admitted the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that their signatures were obtained fraudulently. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that no such attempt was made by the appellants to ever raise this plea either before the learned trial Court or before the first Appellate Court. The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded that partition was not established and that Joginder Singh, the sole person who chose to contest the proceedings, only pleaded oral partition without producing any cogent evidence in that regard. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the same, for the reason that pure findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below and no evidence has been shown which could belie the case of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Besides, the appellants are precluded from challenging the findings of the Courts below in the wake of the fact that they had admitted the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 24.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss