Rakesh Jain & ANR v. Harsha Bala & ORS

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1393-2017 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1393-2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.12.2018 Rakesh Jain and another ... Appellants

Versus

Harsha Bala and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate for the appellants.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J.

The appellants-defendants have assailed the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the preliminary decree for separate possession, conferring the shares, has been passed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantsdefendants submitted that the parties had already been living separately and there was an implied partition, which was not reflected in the revenue record. There was also mutual agreement of partition and in view thereof, `5 Lacs was paid to one of the co-sharers.

I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable, for, the defendants miserably failed to prove the assertions made in the written statement as the record of rights of the ownership reflected the jointness. As regards the separate possession, the same can be looked into at the time of drawing of the final decree.

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1393-2017 (O&M) In this view of the matter, there cannot be any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. 19.12.2018 Yogesh Sharma ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No