RSA No. 1283 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 3792-C of 2008 and RSA No. 1283 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 03, 2010 Amarjit Singh and another ...... Appellants Versus Seeso and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 3792-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded, delay of 95 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1283 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for possession by partition of a residential house owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the parties. RSA No. 1283 of 2008 (O&M) 2 The appellants resisted the suit by claiming that the property was sold to them. In a separate suit relating to the same sale deed (but with respect to the agricultural land), the said sale deed was struck down being without consideration and that judgment has become final between the parties. The Courts below found as a fact in this case also that the sale deed relied upon by the appellants was not proved and consequently decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the findings recorded by the learned courts below are perverse having been rendered by total misreading and non-reading of material evidence placed on the record? ii)Whether the conclusions drawn by the learned Courts below are erroneous, being arrived at without evidence/inadmissible evidence? iii)Whether the learned Courts below have failed to consider the vital pieces of evidence? iv)Whether the findings recorded by the learned courts below are perverse having been rendered/being contrary to the documents/evidence placed on the record? v) Whether the courts should have drawn adverse inference against the respondents? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. As regards the sale deed on which the appellants rely, apart from the fact that both the Courts have found it to be vitiated, it cannot also be lost sight of that the said sale deed has been set aside in an earlier suit between the parties and the said judgment has become final. In the circumstances the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below cannot be said to be either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. RSA No. 1283 of 2008 (O&M) 3 There is, however, one more point which has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants. As per him the predecessor-in-interest Milkhi son of Bhag Singh had four children and respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 were all legal representatives of one of the sons of Milkhi aforesaid. However, under the impugned judgment 1/4th share has been given to respondents No. 1 and 2 and 1/4th to respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the respondents has very gracefully stated that in fact these two persons were entitled to combined 1/4th share. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that once the agricultural land continued to be joint this suit would be barred for partial partition. It may be mentioned that the respondents had filed two suits challenging the alienation of the land and the house. Both the suits were proceeding independently. Therefore, at the time when the respondents filed the suit it was not a joint property. For effecting partition of agricultural land an application has to be given to the revenue authorities. Consequently this suit cannot be held to be barred by the doctrine of partial partition. However, parties would be at liberty to seek partition of the agricultural land also in appropriate proceedings. With this modification this appeal and the application for stay are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 03, 2010 sunita