Regular Second Appeal No. 3753 of 200 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3753 of 2008. (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.2.2009 *** Rampat & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Raj Singh & ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiffs'' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, non-suiting him in the suit filed for declaration claiming half share in the land measuring 90 kanals 3 marlas by lapse of time and also from restraining the respondent- defendants from forcibly taking the possession of the suit land or alienating thereof and that the judgment and decree dated 23.5.1996 and consequent mutation No. 4624 entered on the basis thereof are wrong, illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, I am of the firm opinion that no interference of this Court in the concurrent findings of fact as well as law would be warranted. The facts have been analyzed in proper perspective and accordingly the findings have been recorded on the basis of that evidence. Admittedly, the land of Pana Chandan was mortgaged with the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the defendants and the dispute between the parties is regarding shares of the mortgagees. The plaintiffs' case rests upon Fard Badar No.9 dated 7.3.1993 to the effect that in fact there were 11 shares of the suit land and Regular Second Appeal No. 3753 of 200 2 not 9 and consequently the defendants were entitled to get 36 kanals in the suit land while by virtue of judgment and decree dated 23.5.1996, they succeeded in getting half share of the total land measuring 90 kanals 3 marlas illegally. It emerges out from the record that it has been found that the said Fard Badar was not signed by the Patwari nor by the Girdawar, nor by the Attesting Authority. Even in the Fard Badar Ex.P4 coupled with the pleadings of the plaintiff itself, it was found that the shares of the mortgagees were divided into nine shares which continued in the revenue record since the jamabandi for the year 1909-1910 and thus, it was rightly held that the plaintiff cannot claim any right on the basis of said Fard Badar in which the shares of the mortgagees were divided as 11 shares without any basis, especially when the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction in the matter to make correction in the record of rights by Fard Badar as per Punjab Land Records Manual Para 7.29, which vests only with the Civil Court under Section 45 of the Punjab Land revenue Act. Further, no evidence, worth of any credence was produced by the plaintiff to prove that the judgment and decree dated 23.5.1996 was illegal or based upon mis- representation of facts, rather it was found by both the Courts below that the suit of the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.5.1996, filed on 20.2.2003 is not only barred by limitation but also bad for non- joinder of other co-mortgagees, who have also vested interest in the suit property. The aforementioned findings are discernible from reading of paras 19 to 26 of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court below. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity or error in recording the findings by the Courts below. No question of law would arise warranting admission of the appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the code. The findings of the Courts below are liable to be up-held and the law has been correctly applied. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 20,2009 Jiten