R.S.A No.1396 of 2009(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : November 09, 2009 1. R.S.A No.1396 of 2009 Niranjan Kaur and another vs Manjit Kaur and others. 2. R.S.A No.1749 of 2009 Smt. Nasib Kaur vs Manjit Kaur and others. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.1396 and 1749 of 2009, as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA No.1396 of 2009. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for partition. The case of the appellants was that they had purchased plots from respondent No.3 but that land still stood joint and, therefore, were entitled to partition the same. Both the Courts have found that even though in the revenue record the land was described as joint yet actually these were small plots sold by Vishal Co- operative House Building Society Limited. Further, plot No.42 was sold to R.S.A No.1396 of 2009(O&M) ::2:: appellant No.1-Niranjan Kaur. Both the Courts below took into consideration the statement of the solitary witness, who appeared on behalf of the appellant and admitted that similarly separate plots had been sold to all the other parties. He had also admitted that many of the purchasers had built boundary walls/construction on their plots. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the finding of fact that actually there was no joint-ness is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence as would require interference of this Court under Section 100 of the CPC. Counsel for the appellant has proposed the following questions :- “ a) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees dated 25.11.2008 and 17.5.2005 passed by the Courts below are contrary to law, evidence and facts on the file? b) Whether the Courts below have mis-read the copy of sale deed and jamabandi produced by the plaintiffs- appellants as Ex.P2 and P-3 while passing the impugned judgment and decree ? c) Whether the judgments and decrees are against law laid down in 1981 PLJ page 205 decision of this Hon'ble Court ? d) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees dated 25.11.2008 and 17.5.2007 passed by the Courts below are against law as well as principles of natural justice ?” In view of the finding of fact that the respondents have been R.S.A No.1396 of 2009(O&M) ::3:: able to prove that there is no joint-ness, the questions proposed do not arise in this appeal. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeals have since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 09, 2009. JUDGE `kk'