IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2810 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 13, 2011. Harbhajan Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Amrik Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S.Cheema, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 20.03.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, was dismissed. RSA No.2810 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, the suit was filed by respondents-plaintiffs No.1 to 3 for a decree for partition by metes and bounds by taking the plea that the suit property was joint between the parties and the same has come from their common ancestor –Jawand Singh. Appellant-defendant has taken the plea that the suit property was self acquired property of his father and that he has inherited the same from his father and the same was not joint one. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that suit of the plaintiffs is to stand on its on legs and that however, plaintiffs have failed to prove that the property in dispute is joint between the parties by leading cogent evidence. It is further contended that oral evidence led by the plaintiffs that the property in dispute is an ancestral property, was duly rebutted by the appellant-defendant. There is no dispute that Surjit Kaur, one of the plaintiffs is mother of present appellant and she had to file this suit alongwith Amrik Singh and Jit Singh, brothers of her husband. She had deposed that the property in dispute is joint and was inherited from their common ancestor Jawand Singh and that her husband was not exclusive owner of the suit property. She had to file suit against her son. Hence, in view of these facts, though the case of the plaintiffs is based on oral evidence however, in view of deposition of present appellant that the property was inherited by the parties from common ancestor –Jawand Singh, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned 2 RSA No.2810 of 2010 courts below in coming to the conclusion that the property is joint between the parties and that the same has not been partitioned so far. 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 the 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 ) July 13, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3