IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4283 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: December 22, 2011. Jagbir Singh ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Balbir Singh ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Manish Jolly, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.12958-C of 2010. The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4283 of 2010. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 27.02.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant- defendant against judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, decreeing the suit filed by RSA No.4283 of 2010(O&M) respondent-plaintiff for separate possession by way of partition to the extent of one half share in the property in dispute. 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, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for decree for separate possession by way of partition in the entire property in dispute on the plea that the property in dispute was purchased jointly by both the parties being real brothers from Jalandhar Improvement Trust and sale deed was also executed jointly in their favour and sale consideration was paid in equal shares and hence, plea has been taken that respondent-plaintiff being joint owner is entitled to get his share partitioned. On notice being issued, defendant admitted the relationship of the parties. He also admitted that the property in dispute was purchased in their joint names but the plea has been taken that plaintiff is not in possession of the property in dispute and rather, the entire property is in possession of the defendant and he has also raised construction over the same. Plea has also been taken that respondent-plaintiff entered into an agreement to transfer his share of the property in dispute in his favour. On appreciation of evidence led by both the parties, learned trial Court passed preliminary decree in favour of respondent-plaintiff holding that he is owner to the extent of one half share in the property in dispute and another half share is owned by appellant-defendant. Appeal filed by present appellant-defendant was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. 2 RSA No.4283 of 2010(O&M) The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant is that respondent-plaintiff is not in possession on any portion of the property in dispute and that rather construction was also raised by him and he is residing in the same and the same is not capable of being partitioned. However, final decree in this case has not been passed so far. In this case, only preliminary decree has been passed by the Courts below holding that both the parties are owners to the extent of one half share in the property in dispute which was duly purchased in the joint names of both the parties being real brothers. 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 both the 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 mis-appreciation 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. (RAM CHAND GUPTA) December 22, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3