RSA No.1905 of 2016 (O&M)

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1905 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of decision:01.08.2016

Inderpal

... Appellant

Vs.

Om Parkash and others

... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:-

Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

Appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of

facts and law, whereby, claim in the suit seeking possession by way of

partition to the extent of 1/5^th share out of house in dispute, has been

declined by both the Courts below.

Mr. Ajit Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-plaintiff submits that claim in the suit was that property at the

hands of father of the appellant was ancestral and, therefore, he is owner in

possession of the same being co-sharer to the extent of 1/5^th share. It is

double storey building/joint ancestral residential house situated in abadi deh

of Jhajjar, Haryana. Both the Courts below have erroneously declined the

suit on the ground that plaintiff has not been able to prove the nature and

character of the property, whereas, on the contrary, defendants have not

been able to discharge the onus by showing the property being self-

Savita

2016.08.10 14:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.1905 of 2016 (O&M)

{2}

acquired, thus, there is illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments

and decrees of the Courts below.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and

appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

Defendants have proved on record that it is the self-acquired

property and not inherited. The plaintiff claimed that the property is

acquired by his other brothers. Even otherwise, for proving the nature and

character of the property, intkab and pedigree table have to be proved on

record. In this regard, no evidence has been placed on record.

In my view, both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the

suit. No ground is made out for interference in the findings rendered by the

Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for

adjudication of the present appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL)

JUDGE

August 01, 2016

savita

Wheather speaking/reasoned

Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No

Savita

2016.08.10 14:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh