RSA No.2898 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2898 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Samittran Devi and others .....Appellants v. Smt.Santosh Kumari and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8682-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2898 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 3.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 26.11.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide which suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs for partition was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Admitted facts are that Rala Ram was grand-father of plaintiffs, and great grant-father of defendants nos.2 to 4 and grandfather of husband of defendant no.1. He executed a gift deed in favour of his grand sons,i.e., RSA No.2898 of 2010(O&M) -2- plaintiffs Joginder Pal and Narinder Kapoor and father of defendants no.2 to 4, namely, Madan Lal. He executed a registered gift deed of the property in dispute in favour of all his grandsons. Hence, all the three brothers came in possession of the property in dispute by virtue of a gift deed executed by their grandfather in equal shares. The present suit was filed for partition by two of the co-owners, i.e., Joginder Pal and Narinder Kapoor alias Surinder Pal against legal representatives of Madan Lal, the present appellants- defendants. Though it was denied by present appellants that the property in dispute was joint of the parties, however, respondents-plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are co-owners in possession of the premises in dispute by virtue of a gift deed executed in their favour by their grandfather, Rala Ram. Hence, learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by present appellants-defendants was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellants is that the shop in dispute is very small and that the same cannot be partitioned. However, the said plea cannot be entertained at this stage. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned 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 this second appeal. No question of RSA No.2898 of 2010(O&M) -3- law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 23.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge