RSA No.2265 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2265 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:10.08.2010. Jagan Nath ...Appellant Versus Lal Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Defendant No.1 is in second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed. The brief facts of the case are that grandfather of the parties purchased 6 Biswas i.e. 6/43 share out of land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Biswas about 65 years back and raised construction on a portion of it. Grandfather of the parties, namely Ganesha Ram, died in the year 1967. His estate was inherited by Mansa Ram, father of the parties, who too had died in the year 1984 and his estate was inherited by both the parties in equal shares in which the plaintiffs have 2/5 share. It was alleged that the property is joint between the RSA No.2265 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ****** parties and the plaintiffs did not want to keep their share joint with the defendants, therefore, the present suit for partition was filed and the defendants were sought to be restrained to alienate or raise any construction over the property in suit. In the written statement, it was alleged that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 3 have relinquished their rights in favour of defendant No.1 (appellant herein) by receiving the amount of their share. It is, however, admitted that Ganesha Ram was the owner of the property. After his death, his estate was inherited by Mansa Ram and after his death, the parties have become co-owners of the property by virtue of inheritance. The precise stand of defendant No.1 was that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 have relinquished their share for consideration in his favour and he had raised construction of the house and since then he is owner in exclusive possession of the property to which neither the plaintiffs nor defendant Nos.2 and 3 have any concern. After framing of issues and obtaining evidence, both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs disbelieving the case set up by defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 had relinquished their right in the property in dispute in his favour for consideration. The learned First Appellate Court has returned the finding in this regard, which is as under: - “14. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned lower Court, wherein, RSA No.2265 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - ****** it has been held that the defendant no.1 has failed to prove that the plaintiffs have relinquished their share in favour of defendant no.1. In the written statement, defendant no.1 has not mentioned the date, month and year, when the plaintiffs have relinquished their share in his favour and further, there is nothing on record that whether any writing was executed between the parties regarding relinquishment of share of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 or not. 15. Whereas, Babu Ram, DW1 in his cross examination has stated that the property was partitioned by Mansa Ram during his life time and no writing was executed, but he failed to tell that what property was given to the plaintiffs in lieu of the share relinquished by them in the suit property, in favour of defendant no.1 Jagan Nath, one of the defendants, when appeared in the witness box as DW2 and he has also admitted that he cannot tell that what share was given to them in the family settlement and he also failed to RSA No.2265 of 2010 (O&M) - 4 - ****** tell the date, month and year of the alleged family settlement. Defendant No.1, also examined Avtar Singh as DW1, who has proved the existence of the electric connection in the property in suit, but mere existence of electric connection in the property does not confer the title of ownership on the party. There is nothing on record that any family settlement had taken place between the parties and as per the revenue record the property is still joint between the parties. 16. However, learned counsel for the appellants was put a question how the findings are wrongly arrived at. Whereas, he could not explain, rather said there is no writing in his favour and they could only produce oral evidence and they have examined Avtar Singh to prove the electric connection in the property in dispute, but the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that mere existence of electric connection in the property does not confer the title of ownership of the property and RSA No.2265 of 2010 (O&M) - 5 - ****** further the appellants have failed to explain as to what property was given to the plaintiffs/respondents in lieu of the share relinquished by them in the suit property and even could not explain during the course of arguments at appellate stage. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the judgment by the ld. lower Court, so the findings recorded by learned Court on issues No.1, 2 and 5 are hereby affirmed.” Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 though has tried to persuade this Court against the finding of fact having been recorded by both the Courts below but he has miserably failed in his feeble attempt to raise any substantial question of law. In view of the pure finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree of the Courts below. Thus, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. August 10, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE