IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3858 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: December 9, 2011. Smt. Murti Devi and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Daya Chand and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Dr. Praveen Hans, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hisar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Hansi vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed with cost. RSA No.3858 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, present appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for decree for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute and that mutation bearing no.393 dated 04.09.1984 is illegal and void and is not binding on the rights of present appellants-plaintiffs. On notice being issued, suit has been contested by respondents- defendants, inter-alia, on the ground that jurisdiction of civil court to entertain the present suit is barred. Specific plea has been taken that entire property was partitioned by mutual consent and that the said factum of partition was got incorporated in the revenue record vide impugned mutation. On considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the factum regarding private partition has been entered in the revenue record vide mutation, Ex.P10 and the said private partition is with the consent of the parties. It has also been observed that the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain the present suit is also barred under Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Hence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant. Appeal filed by appellants- plaintiffs against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hisar. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that no order regarding sanctioning of mutation was passed by the 2 RSA No.3858 of 2010 concerned revenue officer and that mutation was sanctioned at the back of present appellants-plaintiffs. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs. It is a case of partition by mutual consent i.e. private partition on the basis of which impugned mutation was sanctioned vide Ex.P10 and since then parties have been continuing in possession of their respective shares. The present suit was filed after about 23 years of sanctioning of the mutation. Parties continued in possession of the respective portions since the sanctioning of the mutation. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 9, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3