R.S.A.No.4773 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.4773 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Ram Karan ......Appellant Versus Ram Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of partition. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Mange Ram was owner in possession of the suit property situated in residential area of village Sanghi. The suit property, depicted in the site plans attached with the plaint bearing Nos. I to VI, was jointly owned and possessed by the parties and had not been partitioned so far. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, averred that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. Defendants No.2 to 7 had no right or concern in the suit property. The said defendants were already married and could not seek R.S.A.No.4773 of 2009 (O&M) 2 partition. The suit property was in possession of the answering defendant and had already been partitioned by metes and bounds. Defendants No. 2 to 7, in their written statement, admitted the claim of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession by way of partition of the suit property mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint? OPP. 2.Whether the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is not properly valued ? OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD 7. Whether a family settlement in respect of the suit property took place since a long as alleged ? OPD 8. Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Rohtak decreed the suit of the plaintiff for partition vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.8.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. R.S.A.No.4773 of 2009 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The main grievance of the appellant before this Court as well as before the first Appellate Court was that the property described in site plan Ex.P-3 was exclusively owned and possessed by the appellant and hence, the plaintiff and other defendants had no concern with the same. However, the appellant failed to lead any documentary evidence to establish his plea that he had purchased the suit property depicted in site plan Ex.P-3 from Jai Narain and Boop Singh. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had purchased the property shown in site plan Ex.P-3 from Jai Narain and Bhoop singh was not mentioned in the written statement filed by the appellant. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the appellant had failed to establish that he was exclusive owner in possession of the property shown in site plan Ex.P-3. So far as the property shown in site plans Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-8 is concerned the right and title of the plaintiff over the same was admitted by the appellant during the course of arguments before the first Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 26, 2011 anita