RSA No.3527 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3527 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:7.12.2011 Daulat @ Dullo and others ... Appellants versus Kartar Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for the appellants. ... JORA SINGH, J. CM Nos.10356 and 10358-C of 2010 In view of the allegation in the applications supported by affidavit, delay of 680 days' in refiling and 40 days' in filing the appeal is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. CM No. 10357-C of 2010 Deficiency of Court fee was made good. Application stands disposed of. RSA No. 3527 of 2010 Regular Second Appeal by the appellants to challenge the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Pathankot, was dismissed. Appellants filed the main suit for possession of land bearing different khasra numbers situated in the revenue estate of Villages RSA No.3527 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Kahanpur, Pangoli and Manwal on the allegation that the property in the hands of Bachittar @ Baghitteru was joint with other co-sharers. Property was not partitioned but the same was sold without any legal necessity. After evidence, trial Court held that the property in the hands of Baghitteru was not ancestral joint with other co-sharers. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized. Finding of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that property in the hands of Baghitteru was ancestral. Property was joint but in support of this allegation, learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any document. After going through the evidence on the file, both the Courts below rightly observed that the property in the hands of Baghitteru was not ancestral joint with other co-sharers. Sale deed was rightly executed by the attorney. While disposing of regular second appeal, High Court is to interfere if evidence on the file was misread or the impugned judgment is perverse, but evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the Courts below. No reason to differ. No substantial question of law is involved. Baghitteru was the owner of the property and through attorney, property was sold. For the reasons recorded above, RSA No.3527 of 2010 without merit is dismissed. 7.12.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE