R.S.A No. 2762 of 1983 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2762 of 1983 (O&M) Date of decision : January 18, 2010 Mahla Ram (dead) through L.Rs ...... Appellant (s) v. Lachman Dass, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. *** 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 appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent for declaration that the plot which was jointly purchased by the parties was divided half and half, and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from forcibly taking possession of one portion thereof viz A,B,C,D,E,F. The plea of the defendant-appellant was that in fact he was given a larger chunk of land because his portion was in the corner and that R.S.A No. 2762 of 1983 (O&M) ::2:: the portion marked A,B,C,D,E,F was actually possessed by him. The trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court relied on the fact that even while the appellant claimed that he had been given 9 sq. yards extra land due to locational disadvantage yet the excess area which he was seeking was more than 9 sq. yards. The lower appellate Court also relied on the fact that if in a jointly owned plot the shares are not equal than any such agreement must be reduced into writing which was not done in the present case. The lower appellate Court further relied on the fact that to justify the excess area in his possession the appellant had claimed that he had purchased some more land from the brother of Kahna Ram but he was not able to produce any evidence in this regard. At the time when this appeal was filed, no question of law was framed. Even today, counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court. However, he 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 so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 18, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 2762 of 1983 (O&M) ::3::