Regular Second Appeal No. 2903 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 2903 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.7.2011 Labh Singh alias Karam Singh …Appellant Versus Amrik Singh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) This is defendant's regular second appeal. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted a civil suit praying that the appellant/defendant be restrained from changing the nature of plot bearing No. 135 measuring 1 kanal 1 marla situated in village Amani. On notice, the defendant/appellant appeared and raised a plea that the demised plot has fallen to the share of his father Sher Singh vide a written family settlement and compromise Ex.DW.1/A and Ex.DW.1/B. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 15.4.2099, gave the following finding: “7. Admittedly both the parties of the suit are co-sharers in the disputed property. The case of plaintiff is that suit land is lying joint, whereas case Regular Second Appeal No. 2903 of 2010 2 of defendant is that the same was given to his father in a family settlement. The said family settlement dated 29.1.1983 has been placed on file as Ex.DW.1/A. A perusal of this document leads to nowhere. No specific details/number/boundaries/ dimensions of the property regarding which the said compromise was arrived does not found mention. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that compromise Ex.DW.1/B was executed qua the suit land...” The trial Court further held that Sher Singh, father of the appellant/defendant had challenged the transfer of his share made by Kaka Singh in favour of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant-Ranjeet Singh by suffering a Civil Court decree on 22.5.1986. The suit, instituted by father of the appellant/defendant, was withdrawn. The trial Court further held that when the defendant stepped into the witness box as DW.2, he admitted that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant are cultivating the suit property, which was a joint land and the same has not been partitioned. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, the trial Court had decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant has filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court has also affirmed the findings given by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court held that admittedly the parties are co-sharers in the disputed plot. The Appellate Court further held that a compromise Ex.DW.1/B contained no specific details regarding number, boundaries and dimensions of the property. Therefore, it was held that it could not be Regular Second Appeal No. 2903 of 2010 3 inferred from Ex.DW.1/B that the same pertains to the demised property. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, appearing for Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate, has based his entire claim on the document Ex.DW.1/B. This document has been rejected by both the Courts below. Today also, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy me as to how, on the basis of document Ex.DW.1/B, it can be held that the same pertains to the demised property. The findings returned by both the Courts below suffer from no infirmity. No question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 14, 2011 “DK”