RSA No.36 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.36 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Chhote Lal .....Appellant v. Om Parkash and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.129-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 122 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.36 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 28.1.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 13.2.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohindergarh, dismissing suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the suit property by taking the plea that the same is still joint of the parties. RSA No.36 of 2011(O&M) -2- Parties are real brothers and sons of Jhutha Ram. They are claiming through Jhutha Ram. There had been a protracted litigation between the parties. Earlier a compromise was effected and a compromise decree was also passed according to which it was held that plot in dispute would be of Om Parkash, the contesting defendant, who has also raised construction over the same. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that the present suit for partition with respect to the said plot is no more maintainable, in view of admission made by Jhutha Ram in earlier civil suit No.321 of 1989 that the house on the said plot was constructed by Om Parkash-respondent. 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 learned Courts below is fully 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. 22.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge