IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 935 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 7, 2011. Begraj and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Bhim Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 27.09.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide which appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs was accepted by reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Hisar and the suit filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs was decreed to the extent that out of total land measuring 34 Kanals 11 Marlas, the appellants-plaintiffs are owners in possession of land measuring 10 Kanals 2 Marlas and the actual possession RSA No.935 of 2011 of the said land measuring 10 Kanals 2 Marlas is subject matter of the partition proceedings pending between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs is that they are in possession of specific Khasra numbers as mentioned in the plaint. However, learned first appellate Court has already observed that the partition proceedings are pending. This fact is not disputed. Hence, the factum of actual entitlement as per the share of joint owners would be decided in the said partition proceedings. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the 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 misappreciation 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 ) September 7, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 2