JAGDISH RAI Vs. MOHINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from forcibly or RSA No. 753 of 2006 (2) illegally dispossessing over the land measuring 13 Kanals 18 Marlas was dismissed.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the property was partitioned during the life time of their father Dhanna Mal 25 years ago. The plaintiffgot land measuring 13 Kanals 18 Marlas in such partition. The defendants have admitted partition but alleged that the plaintiff has got only 2 Kanals 14 Marlas of the land in partition. Both the courts have found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that 13 Kanals 18 Marlas of land was given to the plaintiff in partition. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Alternatively it was found that after the death of Dhanna Mal in the year 1995, all the legal heirs would be deemed to be in possession of the property as co-sharers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Mark-A, dated 16.12.2000 has been produced by the defendant in which, the plaintiff is alleged to have got 4 Kanals 14 Marlas of land in partition. The said document dated 16.12.2000 is prior to the filing of the suit on 23.12.2000. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has referred to such document in their respective pleadings. Such document has not been admitted into evidence as well. On the basis of evidence produced by the parties, both the Courts have found that the plaintiff has not been able RSA No. 753 of 2006 (3) to prove that land measuring 13 Kanals 18 Marlas fell to his share. Since the said finding is based upon appreciation of evidence, I do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Dismissed.