from the fact that Gayatri Devi nowhere during the entire trial of both the cases took any steps in this regard. With these background, the trial court record and impugned judgment is perused again. Vide impugned judgment, Ld. Trial court has considered all these aspects and more particularly the issue pertaining to ownership of Gayatri Devi and I am of the considered opinion that Ld. Trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that she has failed to establish any prima facie legal right in her favour qua the suit property in question. Thus, Ld. Trial court has rightly observed that she is neither aware from whom the property was purchased or how and when the documents have been manipulated nor she has been successful in establishing her contention that oral partition had taken place. It is further reflected from the record that not even a single document or oral evidence from either side has come on record vide which it could be considered that partition in between the parties had taken place. Thus, I concur with the findings given by Ld. Trial court while passing the impugned judgment that Gayatri Devi has failed to establish her legal right qua the suit property in question and has failed to discharge the burden of proving her case. Thus, all the grounds taken by the Gayatri Devi vide these two appeals are not tenable in the eyes of law. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2016. Hence, the appeals filed by Gayatri Devi bearing RCA No.19/16 and RCA No.20/16 are dismissed.”
