IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.68 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.8.2010 Bimla Devi ......Appellant(s) Versus Karnail Kaur and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.294-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.296-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. LRs of Kheta Singh, who is proforma respondent, are brought on record for the purpose of this appeal only. RSA No.68 of 2010 (O&M) This appeal has been preferred by defendant No.2-Bimla Devi challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of partition of the suit land was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed in her favour holding that the plaintiff-respondent Karnail Kaur and defendant-appellant-Bimla Devi were owners of the suit property to the extent of half share each. The main controversy before the Courts below between the parties was whether the suit land had been orally partitioned vide writing dated 12.6.1996 and whether the plaintiff-respondent was having share in the suit property. RSA No.68 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact in favour of the plaintiff-respondent decreeing her suit for possession by way of partition of the suit land holding that she has one half share in the suit property whereas defendant No.2-Bimla Devi was owner of the remaining half share in the suit property. It may be noticed that earlier, vide order dated 15.1.2010, notice of motion was issued only to respondent No.1 to the limited extent of exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have informed that the amicable settlement is not possible. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits also and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. In the present appeal, the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below have been challenged mainly on the ground that the Courts below have wrongly discarded the writing of partition dated 12.6.1996 and therefore, the impugned judgment and decrees suffer from perversity. However, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to support the aforesaid argument raised by him before this Court. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. August 30, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE