IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2144 of 2007 Date of Decision : July 29, 2009 Surender Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Ramjivan and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.S.Chahar, Advocate Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for partition and permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1 and another was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the entire property had not been made the subject matter of the suit. Aggrieved of the same, respondent No.1 filed first appeal, which was accepted by lower Appellate Court. Under these circumstances, the present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the contesting defendants. It was the case of the defendants that there were four plots and a Haveli in the village besides the plot in question, which were joint properties of the parties and as those other properties were not made the subject matter of the suit, it was liable to be dismissed as partial partition could not have been ordered. In his cross-examination DW-2 Rajender Singh admitted that the property situated in the abadi of the village stood partitioned amongst co-sharers. However, those co-sharers were not satisfied with the partition. Similarly, DW-3 Shiv Karan deposed that all the co-sharers had constructed their houses in the RSA No. 2144 of 2007 -2- abadi of the village according to their shares. DW-4 Surender Singh testified that the disputed plot and five other plots were joint properties of the parties and only the disputed plot remained to be partitioned. The other properties were partitioned after consolidation. The above mentioned testimonies of the witnesses of the defendants clearly establish that apart from the suit property, the remaining properties of the parties already stood partitioned. In the year 2006, defendant No.1/appellant had filed a suit against Ramjivan plaintiff and others, which was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kosli. In that suit, the appellant had sought partition of the property but his plea was rejected on the ground that the property already stood partitioned. In view of the above, learned lower Appellate Court was perfectly justified in accepting the appeal of the plaintiffs and decreeing their suit for partition. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by learned lower Appellate Court cannot be interfered with in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial questions of law and not otherwise. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, as claimed by the appellants, arises for consideration in the second appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 29, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1