RSA No.3004 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3004 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 4, 2011 Smt.Raksha Devi and others .....Appellants v. Rajiv Mukul and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 24.2.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 12.12.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dismissing suit filed by present appellants- plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for a decree for partition with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from alienating or from changing the nature of the suit land, in any manner. Plea has been taken that the property in dispute is joint of the parties and that respondents-defendants are in possession of the part of the property in dispute as co-owners and that the present appellants- plaintiffs are co-owners of 16 marlas out of the total land. RSA No.3004 of 2010(O&M) -2- On notice being issued, the suit has been contested by respondents -defendants by taking the plea that the suit was converted into various plots by appellants-plaintiffs themselves and specific portions were sold to different persons and hence they came into possession of specific portions and also raised construction over the same, as per portion sold by present appellants-plaintiffs. Plea has also been taken that even passage for egress and ingress to the various plots was also carved out by the present appellants-plaintiffs. On appreciation of evidence suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that only share was sold to respondents-defendants by appellants- plaintiffs and, however, property is still joint of the parties. However, there is no force in this argument of learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs. It has been observed by both the Courts below that appellants-plaintiffs have themselves carved out various plots out of the land in dispute and hence, the same is no more an agricultural land. The land was sold to different persons with specific boundaries. Specific possession was also handed over to various persons and they have also raised construction on the specific portions given to them by present appellants-plaintiffs. Hence, in view of these facts, it has been rightly held by learned Courts below that present appellants-plaintiffs have no right to file suit for partition. The land has already been partitioned by present RSA No.3004 of 2010(O&M) -3- appellants-plaintiffs and specific portions have been given to different vendees. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by 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. 4.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge