RSA No. 2905 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2905 of 2007 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009 Sham Sunder and others ......Appellants Versus Suraj Parkash and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby in a suit for injunction, the defendants were restrained from alienating or disposing off the suit property, in any manner, without getting the same partitioned or alternatively not to alienate the property more than their share. As per the facts on record, Sarni Dass and Bansi Dass, RSA No. 2905 of 2007 (2) purchased the property in dispute vide Qubala Exhibit P.1 dated 18.8.1943. Plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest of Sarni Dass, whereas defendants are the successor-in-interest of Bansi Dass. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the property in dispute, has not been partitioned and, therefore, the defendants have no right to claim exclusive possession of the same. On the other hand, the stand of the defendants was that there was a family partition and in such family partition, the suit property has fallen to the share of the defendants. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact that there is no partition and consequently the property in dispute is a joint property. The defendant-appellants have relied upon writing Exhibit DW3/A dated 7.1.1957, i.e., an entry made in the Register of a document writer in support of their plea of the partition of the house. The first Appellate Court has considered such entry in minute detail and found that in the Register of deed writer though the name of Bansi Dass is mentioned but the name of Sarni Dass is not mentioned therein. Therefore, it cannot be said that a private family settlement was effected between Sarni Dass and Bansi Dass. If there was any family settlement between Bansi Dass and Sarni Dass, the name of Sarni, would have been mentioned in the entry. Still further, the entry does not give any description of the property, therefore, merely for the use of Makanat i.e., house, it cannot be inferred that the entry related to house in dispute. Both the Courts have appreciated the entire evidence to return a finding of fact that the property in dispute has not been partitioned. Such finding is a possible finding on the basis of evidence. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material RSA No. 2905 of 2007 (3) irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16.7.2009 ds