[136] Pritam Singh (since deceased) through his LR Kishan Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] [2] exclusive owner in possession of the property measuring 06 marlas as shown in red colour marked by letters ABCD in the site plan attached to the plaint. Further relief sought restraining defendants from interfering in plaintiff by [3] 27.02.1985 amongst them. The plaintiff further claimed that oral family partition was reduced into writing on [4] failed to prove the family settlement as plea document dated 27.03.1985 was brought on record nor any revenue record was produced to show that the revenue record. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3035 Date of Decision : Pritam Singh (since deceased) through his LR versus Kishan Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Ms. Ritu Pathak, Advocate for the appellant. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff is in regular second appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, claiming himself to be exclusive owner in possession of the property measuring 06 marlas as shown in red colour marked by letters ABCD in the site plan attached to the plaint. Further relief sought is of decree restraining defendants from interfering in plaintiff by raising construction etc. The plaintiff in the plaint claimed oral 1985 between all the brothers, whereby 08 proper amongst them. The plaintiff further claimed that oral family partition was reduced into writing on 27.03.1985 at Nurm Both the Courts below have non suited the plaintiff after he failed to prove the family settlement as plea document dated 27.03.1985 was brought on record nor any revenue record was produced to show that the alleged revenue record. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3035-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.09.2025 …Appellant versus ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the appellant. Plaintiff is in regular second appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, claiming himself to be exclusive owner in possession of the property measuring 06 marlas as shown in red colour marked by letters ABCD in the site plan attached to of decree of permanent injunction, restraining defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of The plaintiff in the plaint claimed oral partition dated between all the brothers, whereby 08 properties were divided amongst them. The plaintiff further claimed that oral family partition was urmahal. Both the Courts below have non suited the plaintiff after he failed to prove the family settlement as pleaded. Neither the original document dated 27.03.1985 was brought on record nor any revenue record alleged partition was reflected in the Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, claiming himself to be exclusive owner in possession of the property measuring 06 marlas as shown in red colour marked by letters ABCD in the site plan attached to of permanent injunction, possession of dated ties were divided amongst them. The plaintiff further claimed that oral family partition was Both the Courts below have non suited the plaintiff after he ded. Neither the original document dated 27.03.1985 was brought on record nor any revenue record partition was reflected in the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.12 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3035 [5] that the plaintiff failed to prove writing dated 27.03.1985 document never saw light of the day. [6] interfere in the [7] dismissed [8] disposed off 09.09.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 3035-2024 (O&M) Counsel for the appellant has not that the plaintiff failed to prove writing dated 27.03.1985 document never saw light of the day. In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the second appeal. Finding no merits in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 09.09.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable -2- Counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove writing dated 27.03.1985. The original In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to rits in the present appeal. The same is All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No been able to dispute the fact he original In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to rits in the present appeal. The same is All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.12 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document