R.S.A. No. 3657 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3657 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2010 Baghel Singh ....Appellant versus Charan Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. A.S. Bhatti, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal, by defendant No.1/appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.2009, passed by the learned Courts below, decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1, for separate possession of land i.e. 1/3rd share by way of partition of the property by metes and bounds. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claimed to be the owner of 1/3rd share of the land by way of inheritance and, therefore, sought possession of his share by way of partition. The suit was contested by the defendants, on the plea that the plaintiff/respondent No.1, had no right or interest in the property in dispute, as under the oral settlement, property in dispute fell to the share of defendant No.1/appellant, as he has given up his claim in ancestral property situated in the village. It was also the case of the defendants, that defendant No.2 has sold his share in favour of defendant No.1/appellant. R.S.A. No. 3657 of 2009 (O&M) -2- On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court recorded a finding, that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 being owner of 1/3rd share, was entitled to separate possession of land by partition by metes and bounds. Other issues framed, on the objections raided by the defendant/appellant, were decided against the appellants, as no illegality could be pointed out in filing of the suit. In appeal the findings of the learned trial Court stand affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of documentary and oral evidence, therefore, perverse?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the evidence was led by defendant No.1/appellant to show that there was oral family partition under which the property in dispute had fallen to the share of defendant No.1/appellant and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had no interest or title in the property, to claim partition by metes and bounds. This important evidence has been mis-interpreted by the learned trial Court in recording a finding that plaintiff/respondent No.1 was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share and entitled to partition by metes and bounds. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The findings recorded on appreciation of evidence, cannot be challenged in the regular second R.S.A. No. 3657 of 2009 (O&M) -3- appeal. Even otherwise, defendant No.1/appellant failed to prove the oral family settlement. The very plea of oral family settlement stands belied from the fact, that he also claimed sale by defendant No.2 in his favour of his share, which clearly shows that there was no family settlement under which defendant No.1/appellant could claim ownership of the property. It cannot, therefore, be said that the judgment is outcome of mis-interpretation of oral and documentary evidence, to term it as perverse. The substantial question of law raised is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 11, 2010 R.S.