RSA No. 5024 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 5024 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 11, 2010 Shyam Lal ...... Appellant Versus Jagdish ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below disbelieving the assertion of the appellant that he had become owner of the shop in dispute by way of compromise. It is not disputed that the parties are real brothers. Their father was owner of a house and four shops and he died intestate. Consequently both the brothers are entitled to succeed to half share of the property. Admittedly as regards the house the parties are in separate possession of the half share each and there is a common gallery which is used by both the parties. As regards the shops the appellant had alleged that in a compromise between the brother said shop was given to him. Both the courts have on fact found that the appellant has not been able to prove the assertion regarding compromise/family settlement. However, the courts below have held that the appellant is in possession of the disputed shop and have passed an RSA No. 5024 of 2009 2 injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellant except in due course of law. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether there is a total misreading of facts an evidence by the learned courts below while ignoring the material and relevant piece of documentary evidence which is a serious error in law vitiating effect on the findings? b) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are perverse? c) Whether the existence of the compromise/family partition has not been specifically denied by the respondent and the same has been proved by the author can be taken into consideration? d) Whether adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent as the original compromise is with him and the same has not been produced? e) Whether the learned courts below have misinterpreted the evidence led by the appellant-plaintiff? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the Courts below but has not been able to persuade me that the finding regarding the inability of the plaintiff-appellant to prove the compromise is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 11 , 2010 sunita