IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1915 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : February 12, 2008 Krishna Kumari and others ....Appellants versus Kundan Lal and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. C.L.Sharma, Advocate for the appellants Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against judgment and decree dated 2.8.2003 passed by the learned trial court whereby a suit for declaration to the effect that the property shown red in the site plan and marked as 'ABCD', a part of khasra no. 489, owned and possessed by them (appellants), was dismissed. Thereafter, first appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2005, primarily on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in this appeal. Sole point of argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants had sought relief only against the respondents and not against all the co-sharers, so the suit filed by them (appellants) should have been decreed by the courts below. This contention of learned counsel for RSA No. 1915 of 2006 (O&M) -2- the appellants merits no credence inasmuch as at the first place, the suit property comprised in khasra no. 489 is not proved to be exclusively owned and possessed by the appellants and at the second place it is not proved on the file that the disputed portion marked as 'ABCD' is also part and parcel of khasra no. 489 as alleged in the suit. Moreover, there are concurrent findings of the courts below that as per revenue record placed on the file, both the parties, besides some other left out owners, are also co-sharers in the aforesaid khasra number. Thus, in the absence of non-joinder of necessary parties, no effective decree, as sought by the appellants, could be passed in this case. It is also apparent from the record that from the very beginning, the respondents had termed the suit, in their written statement, as bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. all co-sharers but inspite of that, the appellants failed to take any step to amend their plaint. While dismissing the suit, the courts below have rightly relied upon Profulla Chorone Requittee and others vs. Satya Chorone Requittee, AIR 1979 SC 1682. More-so, in this case, learned counsel for the appellants could not make out any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. Dismissed in limine. Since no merit is found in this appeal, so no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay. ( Pritam Pal ) February 12, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'