RSA No.1910 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1910 of 2004 Date of Decision: 15.07.2009 Sarup Singh and others ...Appellants VERSUS Mohinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgment of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for declaration that the land already stood partitioned and therefore the claim of the respondent for partition was bad. Learned counsel for the appellants has proposed the following questions:- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, and in view of the over-whelming affirmative evidence showing the partition of the holding inter-se the parties, further evidenced by the document Ex.P/1, the suit filed by the appellants could be dismissed? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant RSA No.1910 of 2004 -2- case and in view of the partition of the holding between the parties having been acted upon, it could be ignored merely on the ground that partition has not been reflected in the revenue records? (c) Whether the reasoning adopted by the learned courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants, which is totally conjectural and based on surmises could be sustained in law? It would be seen that all the three questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken me through the judgments of the courts below as well as the evidence. The Courts below have relied upon a series of facts. It has been held that as per the stand of the appellants the partition took place only in view of the impending acquisition of the land, yet no mention thereof was made in the proceedings for enhancement/apportionment. Further the Courts below have held that the appellants were allowed to prove the alleged memorandum of partition by way of secondary evidence subject to the condition proving the loss but the appellants were not been able to prove their plea that the original memorandum of partition was in the possession of the respondent, thus, disentitling the appellants from reading the secondary evidence. It has also been held that under the alleged memorandum of partition, the appellants were the major beneficiaries and thus the argument that memorandum of partition was with the respondent could not be believed. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that these findings are either illegal or RSA No.1910 of 2004 -3- based on no evidence. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the conclusion that the memorandum of partition was not proved by the appellants. Consequently, I hold all the three questions against the appellants and dismiss the appeal. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 15, 2009 JUDGE ashish