Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbara Singh And Anr vs Amarjit Singh And Anr on 18 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
119 RSA-126-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.01.2023
Dalbara Singh and another ... Appellants
Versus
Amarjit Singh and another .. Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present:- Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate for the appellants.
***
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
The appellants have challenged the judgments of the Courts below
whereby their suit for partition and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below
have not appreciated the entire evidence and the evidence led by the appellants
has been misconstrued. Since no issue whether there were other co-owners had
been framed by the Courts, the suit cannot be dismissed by holding that
necessary parties were not impleaded. He also submits that he wants to go
through the lower Courts records and therefore, the record be summoned as it
would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter.
Heard.
The appellants had filed a suit for partition and permanent
injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from raising any kind of
construction over the suit land. The suit had been dismissed by the trial Court
by holding that other co-sharers who were necessary parties had not been
impleaded and the finding had been affirmed by the Appellate Court.
1 of 3
RSA-126-2023 (O&M) -2-
----------
The appellant/plaintiff-Dalbara Singh, in his cross-examination,
had stated that his grandfather was the owner of the property in question. The
grandfather had four sons, namely, Gurdev Singh, Hardev Singh, Gurnam
Singh and Jora Singh and three daughters, namely, Gurdev Kaur, Bhinder Kaur
and Jinder Kaur. Hardev Singh had expired and was survived by his six sons
including Kesar Singh, Neula, Bodi, Joginder Singh and a daughter, namely,
Binder Kaur. Gurnam Singh (his uncle) is alive. Jora Singh had also expired
and is survived by a son. He, however, stated that he does not remember the
number of sons of Jora Singh and the name of Jora Singh's daughter. He had
further stated in his cross-examination that Gurdev Kaur and Jinder Kaur (his
aunts) were alive while Bhinder Kaur had expired and he did not know her
children.
PW-2- Gurnam Singh, had also submitted in his cross-examination
that Jaimal Singh was the father of Gurdev Singh and all sons of Jaimal Singh
had inherited the entire property in the natural manner including the suit
property and that the sons of Gurdev Singh have further sons and daughters.
However, the appellants/plaintiffs had impleaded only two
defendants, namely, Amarjit Singh s/o late Gurdev Singh and Amarjit Kaur d/o
late Gurdev Singh while several others including aforenoted persons who had
inherited the property had not been impleaded as parties to the suit.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Kanakarathanammal versus V.S. Loganatha Mudaliar and another, AIR
1965 SC 271 that in a suit for possession of the property which would devolve
by way of succession, all the co-owners have to be impleaded otherwise it
would be liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties.
2 of 3
RSA-126-2023 (O&M) -3-
----------
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal which
stands dismissed along with miscellaneous application.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
January 18, 2023 JUDGE
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
