Concurrent findings of fact returned by lower courts cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless there is a substantial question of law or the findings are vitiated by perversity.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiffs are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby suit filed by the appellants for partition and possession, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

It was the pleaded case of the appellants that the suit plot bearing No. 124 as described in the plaint, was allotted to late Sh Gurbax Singh i.e. M/s. Golden Tiles Corporation. Gurbax Singh was the sole and absolute owner of the said plot, and a Conveyance Deed was executed by Chandigarh Administration in his favour on 27.05.1972. Gurbax Singh died intestate; whereupon suit plot devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants. It was contended that plaintiffs acquired 2/9th share; and in similar manner, every defendant also acquired 1/9th share each in the suit property. Thereafter, on account of death of Sh. Bahadur Singh, husband of plaintiff no.1(a), plaintiffs demanded their shares in the plot as well as in other properties. However, Defendants flatly refused to honour the same. In fact, defendants did not allow the plaintiffs to enter the plot in question. It was averred that plaintiffs do not want to remain co-owners with the defendants; and accordingly prayed that the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of partition and possession by metes and bounds; and in the alternative if that is not possible then by way of auction. Hence, present suit was filed on 21.01.2010.

Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2023. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiffs.

Ld. counsel for the appellants submits that in opposition to the case of the appellants, respondents have set up a case of Family Settlement. It is contended that, however, neither has the suit property been transferred on the basis of succession nor has the property been divided as per the Family Settlement. As such, appellants could not have been non-suited.

When learned counsel for the appellants is confronted with the findings of both the District Courts to the effect that Family Settlement dated 28.01.2005 has been acted upon, learned counsel contends that, there may be a finding to this effect, but in pursuance to the Family Settlement, possession of the property has not been delivered to the appellants.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellant examined PW-1 Balwant Singh, PW-2 herself and she proved on record by summoning the record of the ownership of Plot No. 124, Industrial Area, Phase-l, Chandigarh and it was duly proved that neither the plot in question nor the other properties i.e. House No. 404 Sector 46, Chandigarh nor the plot No. 128 Industrial Area, Chandigarh has been transferred to the family members on the basis of the alleged family settlement. Appellant proved on record regarding the allotment of site of the Industrial Plot in question and deed of conveyance which was duly executed in the favor of Late Sh. Gurbax Singh.

It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the ld. District Courts be set aside.

No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

The sole argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that notwithstanding the findings of both the District Courts to the effect that Family Settlement dated 28.01.2005 Ex.DA has been acted upon, but, in actual fact, possession of the suit property has not been delivered to the appellants. In this regard, first and for