Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tulsi Ram And Others vs Ved Parkash And Ors on 5 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046667
CR-4286-2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:046667
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
120
CR-4286-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.04.2024
TULSI RAM AND ORS. ..Petitioners
Versus
VED PARKASH AND ORS. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate
and Ms. Anshul Agnihotri, Advocate
for the petitioners.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. The learned counsel representing the respondents is not present,
though, the case has been called twice.
2. In this revision petition, the petitioners, who were plaintiffs
before the trial Court assail the correctness of order dated
04.06.2012/22.02.2014. The petitioners application under Section 151, 152
read with Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for permitting
the plaintiffs to correct typographical error in description of the joint land
has been dismissed.
3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. Previously, members of a larger family filed proceedings for
partition of the joint property, which was decreed on 28.11.1985. In that
proceedings, Sh. Govind Ram, Smt. Mishri, Sh. Mewa, Smt. Rewati, Smt.
Kamala daughters of Sh. Ram Rikh son of Sh. Mauji, Sh. Datta Ram son of
Sh. Chunna and Smt. Sarti widow of Sh. Baldeva, were declared owners of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046667
CR-4286-2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:046667
land comprised in plot No.440 (0-24), 441 (0-13), 453 (0-8), 455 (0-6), 515
(0-5), 629 (0-18), 634 (0-2), 1211 (0-10), whereas, the property comprised in
Khasra No:- 440/(2) (0-1), 453 (0-8), 455/(1) (0-1), 515 (0-5), 634 (1-2),
1211/1 (0-10) fell to the share of Sh. Chandgi, Sh. Sanwat, Siri Ram, Sh.
Ramji Lal sons of Sh. Jai Ram son of Lahari, Sh. Gopal Dass, Sh. Mange
Ram, Sh. Rati Ram, Sh. Onkar sons of Sh. Kishan Sahai.
5. In the next round, heirs of Sh. Gopal Dass and Sh. Krishan
Sahai filed the suit for possession by way of partition against the children of
Sh. Chandgi, Sh. Sanwat, Siri Ram and Sh. Ramji Lal sons of Sh. Jai Ram
son of Sh. Lahari. The aforesaid suit was also decreed on 04.06.2012 and a
preliminary decree for partition was passed. Subsequently, the plaintiffs
(petitioners) filed an application for correction in the khasra number as there
was error in the revenue record. The aforesaid application has been
dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff is required to be
vigilant about his rights. They are required to verify the correct khasra
numbers before filing the suit.
6. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
petitioners at length and with his able assistance perused the paperbook.
7. He submits that it is evident from the judgment passed on
28.11.1985 that the property comprised in khasra No. 440 (2), 453 (0-8), 455
(1), 515 (0-5), 634 (1-2), 1211/1 (0-10),fell to the share of Sh. Chandgi, Sh.
Sanwat, Siri Ram, Sh. Ramji Lal sons of Sh. Jai Ram son of Lahari, Sh.
Gopal Dass, Sh. Mange Ram, Sh. Rati Ram, Sh. Onkar sons of Sh. Kishan
Sahai.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046667
CR-4286-2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:046667
8. While filing the petition, the petitioners are required to give new
particulars of the aforesaid land. He submits that there was small error in the
description of the property, which should have been permitted to be
corrected. He submits that the correct khasra numbers are as under:-
440/2 (0-12), 453 (0-8), 455 (0-1), 515 (0-5), 634 (1-2),
1211/1 (0-10)
9. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the petitioners.
10. It is evident that the trial Court has not held that there is no
typographical error. As noticed, the trial Court has dismissed the application
on the ground that the plaintiffs were required to be vigilant. The petitioners
herein are villagers. Normally, they are not sufficiently literate. They are
required to depend upon the revenue officials. In these circumstances, the
Court is required to take a broader view rather than dismissing the
application on technicalities.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the revision petition is
allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is requested to
decide the application afresh after verifying the correct khasra numbers,
which are joint between the parties.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 05th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
