IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1075 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 22, 2008 Mandeep Singh and another ...... Appellants Versus Surinder Pal Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs challenging the same made by their father on the ground of the property being coparcenary property and the sale being without legal necessity, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the statements of the plaintiffs as well as DW1 (who happens be the father of the plaintiffs) was there to prove that the property had been inherited by the said DW1 from his ancestors . However, both the Courts have found as a fact that the plaintiff-appellants have not been able to produce any documentary evidence in support of their assertion that the property was coparcenary property. RSA No. 1075 of 2000 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are either perverse or can be held to be not arising from the material on the record. Consequently I dismiss this appeal, however, with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 22, 2008 sunita