-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 3174 of 2007 (O&M) and Regular Second Appeal No. 1815 of 2008 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 03, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 3174 of 2007 (O&M). Sangeeta Anand and others ... Appellants VERSUS Inder Singh and others ... Respondents Regular Second Appeal No. 1615 of 2008 (O&M). Inder Singh and others ... Appellants VERSUS Sangeeta Anand and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate,and Ms. Deepika Kalia, Advocate, for the appellants in R.S.A. No.3174 of 2007 and respondents in R.S.A. No.1815 of 2008. Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate, for the appellant in R.S.A. No.1815 of 2008 and respondent No.1 in R.S.A. No.3174 of 2007. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid two Regular Second Appeals as they are directed against the common -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 3174 of 2007 (O&M) and Regular Second Appeal No. 1815 of 2008 (O&M). judgment and the decree passed by the lower appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were affirmed. Plaintiff Inder Singh had filed the instant suit claiming that he along with defendants Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Bakshish Singh and Nirmal Singh, who are brothers, were co-sharers in the suit land measuring 35 Kanals 3 Marlas. Plaintiff Inder Singh and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 sold their shares to other defendants. Plaintiff claimed that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had sold 2 Kanal 4 Marlas of the suit land in excess of their share and when he (plaintiff) asked them to admit the plaintiff to be co-owner in joint possession of the suit land, they failed to do so, which led to the filing of the instant suit by the plaintiff. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording the evidence led by the parties and hearing their learned counsel dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. However, the trial Court decided issues Nos.7, 8 and 11 against the vendee -defendants and under issue No. 14, it (trial Court) held that share of vendee co-sharer in joint land was subject to adjustment at the time of partition. The plaintiff filed appeal against the judgment and decree filed by he trial Court whereas some of the vendee-defendants filed cross- objection appeal against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which were dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence these appeals by the plaintiff and some of the vendee- defendants, as mentioned above. -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 3174 of 2007 (O&M) and Regular Second Appeal No. 1815 of 2008 (O&M). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in these appeals for the reason that learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant before the lower appellate Court conceded that the only remedy available to him (plaintiff) was to seek partition of his share in the suit land before the competent authority as the suit land was agricultural in nature. Regarding the findings of the trial court upon issues Nos.7, 8, 11 and 14, the lower appellate Court held that the competent Court which would hear the partition suit of the plaintiff, would not be influenced by the findings of the trial Court on issues whose onus was on the cross-objectors before the lower appellate Court. Needless to say, the cross-objectors before the lower appellate Court are appellants of Regular Second Appeal No.3174 of 2007 before this Court. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in Regular Second Appeal No. 3174 of 2007 and Regular Second Appeal No. 1815 of 2008, which are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in Regular Second Appeal No.1815 of 2008. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 03, 2011. JUDGE ak