1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2612 of 2008. Date of Decision: 20.1.2009 *** Sher Singh .. Appellant VS. Mohinder Singh & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a suit for partition and permanent injunction, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the instant regular second appeal and has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees dated 24.3.2006 and 24.7.2008 passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate Court below respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the case file very carefully. The property of deceased Ramdhan is in dispute. Ramdhan was having two sons i.e. plaintiff Sher Singh and Lal Singh (since deceased). The defendant-respondents are the sons of Lal Singh. The plaintiff claimed that he is in possession of half share of the suit property which includes a house and a plot jointly with the defendants and the same has not been partitioned so far and taking due advantage thereof, the defendants are adamant to take forcibly possession of the suit property. While the stand of the defendants was that the suit properties were transferred to them by their grand-father by dint of civil court decree dated 29.12.1987 and since then they are owners in possession of the said house and the plaintiff has no right, title or concern with the same. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveals that earlier the 2 plaintiff filed a suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1987 vide which the agricultural land and house situated within abadi deh were transferred in the names of respondents, arraying his father Ramdhan and respondents as party therein and in that suit a compromise was taken place between the parties by dint of which half share of Ramdhan in the land, as per mutation No.685, was transferred in the name of plaintiff while Ramdhan already transferred his half share of the land in favour of the respondents. That suit was accordingly decreed as per compromise (Ex.PC), vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.1989, but therein also there was no mention of the suit properties and only the share of Ramdhan, as per mutation No.685, was transferred in the name of plaintiff. Even as per decree dated 29.9.1987 (Ex.DB) the houses constructed within abadi-deh were found transferred exclusively in favour of the respondents and the plaintiff himself admitted the possession of respondents over the said house. Thus, taking into account these facts, both the Courts below concurrently held that since the plaintiff is neither co-sharer nor in possession of the suit properties, he cannot ask for the partition of the same. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are either illegal or perverse and need no interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 20,2009 Jiten