RSA No.1625 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1625 of 2009 Decided on:07.10.2009 Laxmi ..... Appellant versus Ambi alias Ambu & another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for declaration that she is owner in possession of 1/3rd share in the house in dispute. The appellant had claimed this right on the basis of an agreement of the year 2008. Both the Courts below found that neither the original agreement with its executant nor its witnesses were produced and hence, did not give any effect to the said agreement and consequently, dismissed the suit. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether if the courts have recognised the custom in a particular matter for a long time, that is considered to be the law and it is not necessary to prove it? ii)Whether in view of Section 57 of Indian Evidence Act, the court can take judicial notice of the custom? RSA No.1625 of 2009 -2- iii)Whether the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be for and on behalf of other co-sharers? iv)Whether the simplicitor suit for declaration without seeking possession, is maintainable by a co-sharer? v)Whether the entries of House Tax Assessment Register are relevant, as done by the authorities under the statute in due discharge of their official duties? vi)Whether in view of order 20, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is mandatory for the ld. Courts below to give the specific findings upon each issue? It would be seen that no questions have been proposed with regard to the title of the property on the basis of which appellant claimed title and ownership in the house in dispute. Thus, the decision on the agreement has to be affirmed. Once it is held that the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to prove the document on which she relies, the questions proposed do not arise. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. October 07, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE