R.S.A NO. 4646 OF 2009 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A NO. 4646 OF 2009 (O & M) DECIDED ON : 15.12.2009 Dharambir and others ...Appellants versus Sultan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the appellants. SABINA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for possession by way of partition against the defendants which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar, vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.2004. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras No.2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under : R.S.A NO. 4646 OF 2009 (O & M) -2- “2. The parties to the suit are descendants of common ancestor Chet Ram as per the pedigree table. The commen ancestor Chet Ram had two sons namely Silak Ram and Kesho Ram. Appellants/Plaintiffs No.12 to 18 are the sons of Kesho. Silak Ram son of Chet Ram had three sons namely Ram Rattan, Ram Sahaj and Mania. Appellants/Plaintiffs No.1 to 12 are the sons of Ram Rattan and Ram Sahai sons of Silak Ram. The plot in dispute shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.P2 was jointly owned and possessed by parties to the suit from the time of their forefathers wherein the share of appellants/plaintiffs No.1 to 11 and that of appellants/plaintiffs No.12 to 18 is 1/6th share and ½ share respectively. The respondents/defendants have not only raise constructions towards south-western side but also constructed one room over the plot in dispute, which needs to be partitions by metes and bounds between the parties to the suit. 3. The respondent/defendant No.1 in his written statement pleaded that he is descendant of Siya who was the adopted son of Ram Rattan. The plot in dispute bearing No.36 was allotted to Siya in the year 1914-15 in the partition proceedings of abadi-deh in civil suit titled as Ram Sarup etc. versus Nathu Khubi and others which was decided on 15.8.1915. The plot R.S.A NO. 4646 OF 2009 (O & M) -3- in dispute which was exclusively owned and possessed by Sahiya is owned and possessed by contesting respondent/defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that the plot in dispute is neither ancestral property of the appellants/ plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants No.2 to 12 being owned by the common ancestor Chet Ram nor they have any right, title or interest over the plot in dispute. 4. The respondents/defendants No.3 to 5 have filed written statement admitting the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs”. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners in possession of the disputed plot ? OPP 2. If first issue is proved, what is the share of the parties in the disputed property ? OPD 3. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. R.S.A NO. 4646 OF 2009 (O & M) -4- Plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for possession by way of partition. However, PW-1 Diwan Singh and PW-2 Satbir Singh admitted that the parties to the suit were having their separate houses since long. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the parties to the suit were having separate houses and partition of the abadi of village had taken place about 100 years ago. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to counter the said finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. This Court, in appeal, cannot interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. DECEMBER 15, 2009 (SABINA) shalini JUDGE