CM No.7131-32-C of 2009 RSA No.2414 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CM No.7131-32-C of 2009 RSA No.2414 of 2009 Decided on:07.10.2009 Prem and others ..... Appellants versus Dei Chand & others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate for the appellants. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. CM No.7131-C of 2009 No order is required in the application. CM No.7132-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 98 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2414 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs for declaration that they were co-owners in possession of 1/3rd share of the agricultural land measuring 15 kanals 13 marlas in dispute on the ground that the respondents were able to prove that the land had been previously partitioned. The following questions have been proposed: CM No.7131-32-C of 2009 RSA No.2414 of 2009 -2- i) Whether the appellants are exclusive owners and in possession in equal shares to the extent of 1/3rd share of the suit land regarding inheritance of Matu s/o Tota? ii)Whether the partition order dated 29.09.2000 are not binding upon the appellants as they were not the parties in these partition proceedings? iii)Whether the notification in question is proved on record and there was no dispute between the parties regarding notification? iv)Whether due to mistake on the part of revenue officials name of the father of the appellants was missing from the revenue records whereas the forefather and appellants are in possession since 1913 upto date and name of the father of appellants was there in the Jamabandi from 1912-13 to 1932-33? v)Whether the ld. Courts below recorded the adverse findings? vi)Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the ld. Courts below are illegal and arbitrary and the same are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble court? The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to question No.(ii). However, learned CM No.7131-32-C of 2009 RSA No.2414 of 2009 -3- counsel is not in a position to deny that against the partition order dated 29.09.2000, the appellants had filed an appeal. Thus, it cannot be argued that the appellants were not party to the partition proceedings. No further arguments were raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. October 07, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE