R. S. A. No. 651 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 651 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 23, 2011 Babu Lal Sharma .... Appellant Vs. Smt. Bhagwati and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. N. D. Achint, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Babu Lal Sharma – plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal having been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiff-appellant alleged that he has purchased half share in the suit land measuring 01 kanal 17 marlas comprised of killa no.28/1, whereas defendants are owners of the other half share. According to the plaintiff-appellant, suit land was partitioned orally between the parties and the plaintiff got the portion depicted by letters ABEF in the site plan, whereas defendants were allotted portion depicted by letters EFCD. However, defendants started interfering in construction being raised by the R. S. A. No. 651 of 2010 2 plaintiff in his portion. Accordingly, plaintiff sought partition of the suit land and separate possession of his share therein. Defendants resisted the suit and pleaded that total land measuring 27 kanals 17 marlas was joint between plaintiff's predecessor Gopal and the defendants' father and in partition proceedings in the revenue Court, the said land except the suit land measuring 01 kanal 17 marlas was partitioned between the said two co-sharers Gopal and Parmeshwari Dass. However, the suit land measuring 01 kanal 17 marlas was left joint being impartible as there exist temple of Hanuman Ji, Dharamshala, Satsang Bhawan, Well, Trees, Chhatri and many idols of God in the suit property. The same was left for charitable purpose as joint property. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2009, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Oral mutual partition pleaded by the plaintiff has not been proved. Even otherwise, plaintiff's plea of oral partition is contradictory to the relief of partition claimed by him in the plaint. On the other hand, R. S. A. No. 651 of 2010 3 defendants have pleaded that the suit land was left joint while partitioning the other joint land of predecessors of the parties. The suit land was found impartible and was, therefore, left joint because admittedly, Temple, Dharamshala etc. are in existence in the suit land. Consequently, question of partitioning the suit land does not arise as the suit land is impartible. In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees of the courts below so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE