RSA No.1084 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1084 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.8.2010 Sarabjit Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Narinder Kaur and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.8542-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned, order dated 21.7.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM No.3256-C of 2010 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.3257-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 2 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.1084 of 2010 This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the plaintiff-respondent was held entitled to 1/5th share of the suit property by way of partition of the same and a preliminary decree was passed in her favour. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the plaintiff had sought a decree for separate possession to the extent of 1/5th share by way of partition of the suit property alleging that she as well as the RSA No.1084 of 2010 (O&M) 2 defendants were legal heirs of Sharam Singh, original owner of the property, who died on 3.12.1988 and thereafter, the suit property was joint of the parties. The suit was contested by defendants No.6 to 8 (including the appellant) stating that the suit property was ancestral in the hands of Sharam Singh wherein entire joint family was residing and the suit property is exclusive ownership of the appellant (defendant No.6) because he was the only male member of the family and the plaintiff-respondent being female was not having any right in the aforesaid property. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact against the appellant. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the aforesaid finding of fact can be challenged. Rather it has been established on record that Sarabjit Singh- appellant filed Civil Suit No.149 of 5.5.2003 against the other legal heirs of Sharam Singh regarding the property left by him claiming to be Joint Hindu family Coparcenary Property and sole ownership of the appellant. However, vide judgment dated 18.9.2007 Ex.P-3, it was found by the Civil Court that after the death of Sharam Singh, property left by him devolved upon all his legal heirs in equal share and the same was not Joint Hindu Family Property. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. August 9, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.1084 of 2010 (O&M) 3