IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO. 780 of 2006 Date of decision. January 29,2007 Ram Ria ......Petitioner Versus Moman and another ......Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL PRESENT Ms. Sonia G. Singh ,Advocate appellant. VINEY MITTAL , J( Oral ) Plaintiff is in second appeal. He has lost concurrently before the two Courts below. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming that he be declared owner to the extent of ½ share out of the three BARAS and the defendants no.1 to 10 be restrained from alienating the property in question. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the description of the property owned by his predecessor. The exparte evidence led by the plaintiff has been found to be insufficient to grant any relief in his favour. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to law. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. January 29, 2007 ( VINEY MITTAL ) mamta JUDGE