IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.273 of 1999. Date of Decision: 23.2.2011. Khazan Singh and others ..Appellants Versus Smt.Gulabi and others ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant(s): Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur in Civil Appeal No.66-N/13 of 1998 whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1998 of the learned Sub Jude, Ist Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land was their exclusive property and therefore the defendants had no right, title or interest in the same. The stand of the defendants was that in - 2 - previous litigation filed by the father of the plaintiffs, the rights of the parties had been decided in Civil Suit No.122/1 of 1959 decided on 30.1.1961 and on the basis of such judgment (Ext.DW-3/A), mutation Ext.DW-3/C was attested showing the plaintiff to be co-sharer and coming in joint possession of the entire khata including the suit land. Therefore, it was alleged that the suit land is joint. 3. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the suit land is joint and dismissed the suit. It is not disputed that Dhanna, father of the plaintiffs, had instituted a civil Suit No.122/1 of 1959. In fact this was a suit filed by the father for joint possession in respect 2/5th share of the land measuring 41 bighas 9 biswas. The present suit land was also part of the land which was the subject matter of the earlier suit. When Dhanna, predecessor in interest of the present plaintiffs, himself only claimed joint share in the suit land, the plaintiffs who derived title from Dhanna cannot claim any better right then him. Therefore, both the Courts below were justified in coming to - 3 - the conclusion that Dhanna was not the sole owner of the suit land. 4. No doubt when the appeal was admitted it was admitted on various questions of law but after hearing learned counsel for the parties I find that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the appeal. The findings of both the Courts below that Dhanna was only a co-sharer and not exclusive owner of the suit land is a pure finding of fact based on the evidence on record. Even the revenue entries show that the land is jointly owned by the parties. There is no evidence to show that there has been partition of the property. 5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. No costs. February 23, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV