Regular Second Appeal No. 4098 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4098 of 2008. (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.2.2009 *** Daya Nand & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Ramphal & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the instant regular second appeal and have laid challenge to the judgments and decrees dated 22.9.2007 and 26.5.2008 passed by the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court below respectively, whereby their suit for partition by metes and bounds has been dismissed. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they along with defendant No.5-respondent No.8 (herein) are in joint possession of plot along with defendants No.1 to 4, which has not been partitioned so far and hence sought partition of the same by metes and bounds. On the other hand the stand of defendnats No.1 to 4 was that they are in exclusive possession of the plot in dispute and the plaintiff and defendant No.5 have no concern with it. Apart therefrom they took the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties and deficient advolerum Court fee on the plaint. After the contest, both the Courts below non-suited the Regular Second Appeal No. 4098 of 2008 2 plaintiffs and dismissed their suit as also the appeal filed by them. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The parties to the suit are admittedly descendants of Bhagmal. It emerges out from the record that both the Courts below concurrently held that all the successors of Bhagmal, some of whom are admittedly alive, have not been impleaded as party to the suit. Although it has been pleaded that the other LRs of Bhagmal have already been given their shares but neither any proof/ evidence was produced to that effect nor the date of alleged partition was brought on record. Moreover, the map, which was produced on record by the plaintiffs in support of their plea of being in possession of the suit property was found signed by Chand Ram and Gopi Ram, but none of them was examined to substantiate the same. That apart, this assertion was found untrue from the pleadings of the plaintiff taken in another suit wherein it was stated that all the descendants of Dale and Ram Chander, the successors of Bhagmal are owners in equal shares and thus, it was rightly concluded that in absence of other descendants of Bhagmal, who have not been impleaded in the suit, it cannot be said that the joint properties were partitioned amongst the descendants of Bhagmal, only leaving the plot in question un-partitioned, as pleaded by the plaintiffs. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach adopted by the Courts below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is either illegal or perverse and based on no evidence. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 4,2009 Jiten