RSA No.2932 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2932 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.10.2011 Naresh Devi & Ors. ....Appellants Vs. Satbir & Ors. .....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.S.Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Plaintiffs/appellants (hereinafter referred as the plaintiffs) being the successors-in-interest of Balwant Singh plaintiff, since deceased, have sought partition of the plot bounded as under, East Street 80' West: Plot of Bhim Singh 81' North: Street 55' South: Street 65', situated at Village Jhaazgarh Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar, claiming themselves to be the co-sharers with the defendants and also sought RSA No.2932 of 2010 2 injunction against their forcible dispossession at the hands of the defendants/responders (herein referred as the defendants). Defendants No.1 to 3, in their written statement, while denying all the averments submitted that they are in possession of the suit land. Defendants No. 4 to 8 have no concern, whatsoever, with the suit plot, whereas defendants No.1 to 3 have constructed a wall and a shed over the plot. While claiming their possession over the plot since 1947, they have also claimed adverse possession. It was also averred that the plaintiffs had instituted one suit No.1789 of 1998 in respect of suit land which was dismissed on 18.7.2002. As such, they are barred from filing the second suit claiming right, title or interest in the suit property. Defendants No.4 to 8 though appeared but later on they were proceeded ex parte. The following issues had emanated from the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the suit property is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the partition of the suit property as averred? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 4. Relief. Though suit property is stated to be bearing no khasra numbers; it is vacant plot and is situated within the Lal Lakir of the RSA No.2932 of 2010 3 village yet the onus lies heavily on the plaintiffs to prove their co- ownership over the suit plot so as to claim partition of the same. No document, muchless record regarding possession i.e. village map, ration card etc. indicating possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plot, has been brought on record. In the absence of any document of ownership muchless possession, it would be difficult to hold that the plaintiffs have any right, title or interest in the suit property as such they could not claim partition. The plea that since the defendants admit that they are in adverse possession of the suit land does not establish the title of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs and establish their title independently by way of leading cogent evidence which they have failed to do so. Both the courts have rightly decided the issues. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this court. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 18.10.2011 Judge rp