R.S.A.No.271 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.271 of 2009 Date of Decision : 24.7.2009 Gian Singh ...Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for partition of plot measuring 15 marlas 3 sarsaises, was decreed. The plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of a compromise in a previous suit filed by defendant No.1 Gian Singh, the present appellant, arrived at on 1.6.1979. Both the Courts have relied upon the aforesaid compromise to grant a decree in the suit for partition. The learned first Appellate Court has found that in compromise Ex.P-2, 8 ½ marlas of land was given to Gian Singh and remaining land was given to Puran Singh and Joginder Singh. Puran Singh has sold his share to Joginder Singh, vide sale deed Ex.D1. Since, in the previous suit, a compromise was arrived at, therefore, the suit filed by present appellant was dismissed on 1.6.1979. The appellant has admitted compromise in his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He has also admitted that R.S.A.No.271 of 2009 2 portion of the land measuring 8 marlas situated on western side was given to him and rest was given to Puran Singh and Joginder Singh. In view of the said fact, it was found that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the said share in the suit property and getting the suit land partitioned. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to argue that compromise Ex.P-2 is not correctly recorded. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in fact there was a compromise on 24.5.1979, in which the terms are different then what has been produced in the Court. The said argument is not tenable. Ex.P-2 is a compromise signed by the parties produced before the Court on 1.6.1979. The aforesaid compromise dated 24.5.1979 is not part of the record. Therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the appellant is not a plea before the Courts below, therefore, the said argument is wholly misconceived. It has been found that the authenticity of compromise Ex.P-2 has not been challenged by the defendants so far. Therefore, in terms of the compromise, the suit was decreed. It is further argued that Joginder Singh while appearing as witness in another suit filed by Amrik Singh against the present appellant, has admitted that he is not in possession of the suit property. Learned trial Court has examined the said argument and found that the said suit was between Amrik Singh and Gian Singh. Joginder Singh is not a party to the said suit. The said statement will not lead to relinquishment of share by Joginder Singh in the suit property. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the statement of Joginder Singh in the previous suit is misconceived. The dispute in the said suit was between R.S.A.No.271 of 2009 3 Amrik Singh and Gian Singh. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 24.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE