RSA No.4530 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.4530 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 30.11.2010 **** Sikander Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Rajinder Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Ms.Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1 against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which his suit has been dismissed. One Jeon Singh had four sons namely, Sikander Singh (plaintiff No.1), Bachittar Singh (plaintiff No.2), Kammikar and Harchand Singh (defendant No.3). Whereas, Rajinder Singh (defendant No.1) and Rupinder Singh (defendant No.2) are the sons of Kamikkar. The case of the plaintiff is that Jeon Singh was the owner of the land of Village Khatra Chauhram, who had partitioned his property amongst his sons during his life time and put them in separate possession. Property mentioned in para No.1 of the head-note of the plaint fell to the share of plaintiff No.1, property mentioned in para No.2 of the head-note of the plaint fell to the share of plaintiff No.2, four rooms in about 2 bighas of land within Lal Lakir of the village was given to Kamikkar Singh and another house within Lal Lakir was given to Harchand Singh (defendant No.3) who are in possession of the same. Harchand Singh sold his house and agricultural land. Plaintiff No.2 constructed his house on the land allotted to him. After the death of Kamikkar Singh, his estate was inherited by defendants No.1 & 2 by mutation No.3929 along with the land and house of the plaintiffs. When the mutation came to the notice of the plaintiffs they requested defendants to leave their property but on their refusal, suit was filed. In the written statement filed by defendants No.1 & 2, partition was denied rather the partition deed was alleged to be forged and fabricated document. It RSA No.4530 of 2010 (O&M) -2- was alleged that suit in the present form is not maintainable rather plaintiff should have filed suit for partition. The plaintiffs had relied upon a document Mark A dated 28.9.1998 which is alleged to be the family settlement. Both the Courts below did not accept the said document Mark A as it was not proved in accordance with law as neither the original was produced on record nor secondary evidence was led in that regard. The plaintiffs had tried to prove their case only on the basis of photocopy of the said document which is inadmissible in law. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to raise any meaningful argument either to challenge the finding recorded by the Courts below or could raise any substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to persuade this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below to disturb the concurrent finding of fact. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and hence the same is hereby dismissed. No Costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) November 30, 2010 JUDGE Vivek