R.S.A. No.3096 of 2007 -1- ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3096 of 2007 Date of decision:07.10.2010. Jagjeet Singh ...Appellant Versus Thoba Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. S.S.Chadha, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal is filed by defendant No.4 against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiffs has been partly decreed to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in joint possession of the suit plot to the extent of 3/5 Marlas and the sale deed dated 18.08.1998 executed by defendant No.2 (Gurdev Singh) in favour of defendant No.3 (Bahadur Singh) and further sale deed dated 14.05.1999 executed by defendant No.3 (Bahadur Singh) in favour of defendant No.4 (Jagjeet Singh) are valid only to the extent of 377/2300 share out of the suit plot measuring 5 Marlas and was held illegal in respect of the remaining share. The sale deed dated 19.01.1999 executed by defendant No.1 (Lachhman Singh) in favour of defendant No.4 (Jagjeet Singh) is also held to be illegal, null and void qua 1-½ Marlas and was declared valid only to the extent of 1/5th share. The prayer made by the plaintiffs for R.S.A. No.3096 of 2007 -2- ******* partition was, however, declined. The facts of this case are not required to be recapitulated as the same have been given in detail in the judgment of the Courts below. Suffice it to say that defendant No.4, who is in appeal, has claimed that there was a family partition by which the plot in dispute fell to the share of defendant Nos.1 and 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, but he has miserably failed to refer to any evidence on record from which family partition either could be ascertained or proved. Therefore, in the face of findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree of the Courts below nor do I find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. October 07, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE