RSA No.3717 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3717 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2011 Ramphool .....Appellant v. Jai Bhagwan and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 17.5.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Gohana, vide which suit for possession by way of partition filed by present appellant-plaintiff alongwith proforma respondents-plaintiffs was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff and proforma respondents and defendant no.1 are real brothers and sisters. Plaintiffs are claiming co- ownership in possession of the entire property in dispute. Plea taken by the present appellant-plaintiff is that there was an oral family partition between the parties and the property came to the share of each of the parties as mentioned in para nos.2(a) to 2(d) of the plaint and they have been RSA No.3717 of 2011(O&M) -2- continuing in possession of the same as per the said family partition, though the specific date of that partition has not been mentioned by appellant- plaintiff. Later on, respondent no.1-defendant sold the property of his share to respondents no.2 to 4 -defendants. This fact has been admitted by respondent no.1-defendant. Suit was dismissed by learned trial Court on the plea that when there was already a family settlement between the parties, even as per case of appellant-plaintiff as well, no suit for partition is maintainable. The said finding was approved by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that in fact it was not a family partition and that it was only a family arrangement and, however, respondent no.1-defendant has been continuing in possession of area more than his share and that the said fact has also been admitted by him. However, even if it is taken that in a family arrangement area more than share of one of the co-owners has been given to respondent no.1- defendant, it cannot be said that family partition is not a valid partition. Respondents-defendants have also taken the plea that the property in dispute was already partitioned between themselves, though they have taken some other specific date of partition and some other date when some adjustment of the joint ownership was made between the parties. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that family partition has already taken place between the parties and hence suit for partition is not maintainable. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the RSA No.3717 of 2011(O&M) -3- impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 14.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge