R.S.A.No.1093 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1093 of 2008 Date of Decision : 14.07.2009 Krishan ...Appellant Versus Om Parkash and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1 is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by Om Parkash in respect of possession of house measuring 90 sq. yards, was decreed. It is admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid house is jointly owned by the parties, who are sons of one Raje Ram. Raje Ram died in the year 1980 and thereafter defendant No.1, the present appellant, asserts exclusive possession of the said property on the basis of an oral family settlement. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that defendant-appellant has failed to prove such oral family settlement. The appellant has filed an application for additional evidence before this Court so as to produce statement of Suraj Mal, one of the sons of Raje Ram in the previous proceedings. The statement was made on R.S.A.No.1093 of 2008 2 4.10.1989 in a suit for injunction filed by Om Parkash son of Raje Ram, wife and daughters of Raje Ram. The appellant is party in such suit. The present suit was filed in the year 2002 but the said statement was not produced in evidence before the learned trial Court. Having failed to produce such statement on the record in the suit in which appellant was a party, the present application for additional evidence in second appeal is wholly misconceived, suffers from gross delay and would reopen the trial. The same is without merit and is dismissed. The stand of the appellant is that there was oral family settlement. The said stand has been found to be untenable as it has been found that none of the witnesses of defendant No.1 could tell about the exact date or month of the partition. The Courts have taken into consideration the fact that parties are living separately but that is a matter of convenience and does not suggest the family settlement. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts are sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. I do not find that the findings by the Courts below have been recorded either on misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence. I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 14.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE