RSA No.3889 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.11884-C of 2009 & RSA No.3889 of 2009 Decided on : 03.11.2009 Sultan Singh & another ... Appellants versus Balwan & another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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.3889 & 3890 of 2009 as common questions of facts and law are involved in these appeals and are between the same parties. The facts for decision are taken from RSA No.3889 of 2009. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent, challenging partition between the parties as well as the collusive decree suffered by the appellant No.1 in favour of the appellant No.2 (his son). Both the parties are grand children of one Ram Dhan who had two sons Ram Sarup and Abhey Ram. The appellants are from the line of Ram Sarup while respondents are from the line of Abhey Ram. Both the Courts below found RSA No.3889 of 2009 -2- that in fact the appellant No.1 had sold some portion of his property in favour of respondent No.1 and thus, the partition proceedings which ignored the sale deed could not effect the right of the respondents to the land purchased by them. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in fact the alleged sale deed was not executed by the appellant No.1 but is a result of fraud. In my opinion, the execution of sale deed is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the ld. Courts below but has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence which renders them so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of CPC. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 in the partition proceedings? ii)Whether the order passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade in the partition proceedings can be ignored by the civil court on the ground that it was passed due to the lackness of the parties? iii)Whether the findings recorded by both the ld. Courts below are perverse? Questions No.(i) & (ii) are related. In my opinion, once the findings regarding execution of sale deed by the appellant No.1 in favour of respondent No.1 is upheld and it is RSA No.3889 of 2009 -3- found that in fact the appellant was granted more than his share in the partition, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the appellant to retain the land which he had sold to respondent No.1. In these circumstances, questions No.(i) & (ii) are to be held against the appellant. With regard to question No.(iii) once the findings of the Courts below on the execution of sale deed are against the appellant, the said question is also to be held against the appellant. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. November 03, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE