RSA No.2219 of 2006 [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2219 of 2006 Date of Decision: 26 - 11 - 2008 Rajmal and another ....Appellants v. Bije Ram etc. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Jitendra Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Counsel for the appellants state that appellant-defendant No.1 has failed before two Courts below on the ground that he has not produced family settlement dated 10.8.1960, on the basis of which he was claiming that 16 marlas of plot fell in his share. In the present case, suit for possession by way of partition was filed. Respondent-plaintiffs claimed in the suit that residential plot measuring 16 marlas comprised in Khasra No.142 was a joint property and they were entitled to possession by way of partition. Defendants appeared. They denied the averments made by the plaintiffs. On merits, it was stated that plot in question had already been partitioned by way of compromise on 10.8.1960 effected between father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the presence of respectables of the village, namely, Tek Chand, Lamberdar and Chhottu Ram, Ex-Sarpanch. No replication was filed. Issues were framed. The trial Court held that plaintiffs pleaded themselves to be RSA No.2219 of 2006 [2] owners in possession up to half share and sought partition of the same. Trial Court took into consideration evidence of the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs and the defendants. The Court held that appellant-defendants failed to prove family settlement dated 10.8.1960, therefore, it cannot be held that the property was already partitioned. The Court also came to the conclusion that the property is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit in equal shares, therefore, it was held that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession by way of partition. Aggrieved against same, appellant- defendants filed appeal before the Appellate Court. Since appellant- defendant failed to prove his part of the pleadings that property was partitioned by way of family settlement dated 10.8.1960, Appellate Court held that the family settlement in no way find mention in the revenue record, therefore, the findings of the trial Court were upheld. The present appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below. It is admitted case that appellant-defendant No.1 has not produced and proved family settlement dated 10.8.1960. The same was also not recorded in the revenue record, therefore, admission between the parties that the property had been jointly owned and possessed by the parties was believed. The trial Court was well within its right to order partition to decree the suit for possession by way of partition. Counsel for the appellants could not formulate any substantial question of law warranting admission of the present appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 26, 2008. JUDGE RC