RSA No. 2561 of 2007 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2561 of 2007 Date of decision: November 19,2008 Daya Ram .. Appellant. Versus Lachi Ram and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Ashok Kaushik,Advocate for the Appellants. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit for partition of the properties in dispute as detailed in the suit and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nos.1 and 2 not to alienate the plot in dispute has been dismissed. Plaintiff-appellant and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and late Devi Charan father of defendant Nos.4 to 6 inherited the property in dispute after the death of Kundan Lal in equal share of 1/5th share in the property. The plaintiff has averred that no partition has taken place between the parties to the suit. Lachi Ram and other defendants are bent upon to alienate the property without getting the property partitioned. Hence this suit for partition with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed. The suit was contested by the defendants Nos.1 to 8 who filed joint written statement. It was pleaded that the property in suit stood partitioned in a family settlement on 26.7.1999 and the parties are in possession of their respective portion of the property which fell to their share on family partition. Chander Bhan defendant No.9 filed a separate written statement alleging therein that he purchased 25 Sq. Yards of land from Daya Ram plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Devi Charan in the year 1980. It was with the consent of the RSA No. 2561 of 2007 2 plaintiff and he was party to the sale deed along with him. It was denied that the property of the parties is liable to be partitioned. Thus it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. Both the parties adduced evidence. The trial Court heard learned counsel for the parties, evaluated evidence and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2007. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. However, I find no merit in this appeal. The courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. During the course of arguments, no infirmity or illegality could be shown by the learned counsel for the appellant in the findings of the courts below. While appearing as PW2, plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted that all the brothers are living separately in their allotted portion and he is living in Plot No.157 and has also occupied area in excess of his share. The memorandum of partition dated 26.7.1999 Ex.D1 bears the signatures of the plaintiff-appellant. Thus it cannot be said that the property in dispute was joint of the parties. Thus there is no error or infirmity in the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court that the property in suit stood partitioned and was not joint of the parties. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 19, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE