IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 82 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011. Rattan Lal. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Dharam Pal. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Diwan S.Adalakha, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Cost of `1,000/- has been paid by applicant-appellant, which has been accepted by learned counsel for the respondent. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 19.01.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 19.01.2007 passed by learned Additional RSA No.82 of 2010 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for separate possession of ½ share by way of partition of the property in dispute was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and have gone through the whole record carefully including impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that both the parties are closely related and that earlier suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction without claiming the relief of possession. However, the said suit was dismissed and hence, it is contended that the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. Earlier suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff for injunction only. There was no issue regarding title in the said suit. The suit was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC as no evidence was adduced by the respondent-plaintiff in that suit. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned courts below that when the relief of possession was not sought in the earlier suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction, it cannot be said that present suit for partition on the basis of title is not maintainable. Further, as per registered sale deed, Ex.P1, it is proved that both the parties are co-shares to the extent of ½ share each in the property in dispute. 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 both the courts below is fully 2 RSA No.82 of 2010 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 law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 26, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3