Regular Second Appeal No. 463 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 463 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : August 18, 2010 Ranjit Singh and others ....Appellants versus Karam Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Jaspal Singh, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 1330.C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 14 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM No. 1331.C of 2010 This is application for bringing on record legal representatives of Harjit Kaur one of the legal representatives of original defendant Dalip Singh. It is alleged that Harjit Kaur had since died leaving behind four sons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application as her only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal Regular Second Appeal No. 463 of 2010(O&M) -2- representatives of Harjit Kaur since deceased. RSA No. 463 of 2010 This is second appeal by legal representatives of Dalip Singh original defendant having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Karam Singh plaintiff is real brother of Dalip Singh defendant since deceased. Plaintiff's case is that both the parties purchased the disputed plot measuring 1111 square yards vide sale deed dated 4.4.1963 in equal shares and are joint owners in possession thereof. The plaintiff sought separate possession of his half share by partition. The defendant, inter alia, pleaded that the disputed plot was purchased by Arjan Singh father of the parties in the names of the parties. Arjan Singh also purchased another plot in his own name as well as in the names of the parties. Both the said plots were mutually partitioned by the plaintiff and the defendant about a year after the purchase and since then the parties are in separate possession of their respective portions and have raised construction thereon. Reference was also made to a third plot allegedly purchased by Arjan Singh in the name of his wife Ram Kaur (mother of the parties) regarding which separate litigation was pending between the parties. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 24.5.2006 decreed plaintiff's suit and passed preliminary decree for partition. First appeal preferred by legal representatives of the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the legal representatives of the defendant have preferred the Regular Second Appeal No. 463 of 2010(O&M) -3- instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that plaintiff-respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that he is in possession of 820 square yards area. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how this admission of the plaintiff has any bearing on the merits of the suit. Admittedly, the suit plot was purchased in the joint names of both the parties in equal shares. Consequently, the plaintiff had half share in the suit plot and defendant had the other half share therein. Defendant has miserably failed to prove his plea of partition of the suit plot and the second adjoining plot. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the second plot purchased by Arjan Singh in the names of the parties was having area of 500 square yards. It is also contended that the said second plot fell to the share of the plaintiff in partition whereas the entire suit plot measuring 1111 square yards fell to the share of the defendant. This averment would rather disprove the alleged partition. It is not explained as to why the plaintiff would accept 500 square yards area only against area of 1111 square yards of the defendant. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to depict that the second plot measuring 500 square yards has been purchased by Arjan Singh in the names of the parties. Consequently, the second plot has no connection with the partition of the suit plot. The defendant claimed the entire suit plot to be his exclusively on the basis of partition. However, the entire suit plot could not be of the defendant on the basis of partition when the plaintiff has also half share in the suit plot. Thus, plea of Regular Second Appeal No. 463 of 2010(O&M) -4- partition taken by the defendant is completely unsustainable. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have arrived at concurrent finding against the defendant. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine being without any merit. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 18, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'