Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh vs Suraj Bhan And Others on 26 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057650
RSA-1891-1991(O&M)
RSA-1895-1991(O&M)
RSA-1233-1994(O&M) 2024:PHHC:057650
-1-
149 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision :26.04.2024
1. RSA-1891-1991(O&M)
Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Suraj Bhan and another ...Respondents
2. RSA-1895-1991(O&M)
Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Chander Bhan and another ...Respondents
3. RSA-1233-1994(O&M)
Dharam Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Rajinder Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant (in RSA-1891-1991 & RSA-1895-1991).
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Parul, Advocate
for the appellant (in RSA-1233-1994) and
for the respondents (in RSA-1891-1991 & RSA-1895-1991).
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. The bunch of three connected regular second appeals has come up
for disposal.
2. In RSA No. 1891 and 1895 of 1991, Sh. Rajinder Singh (plaintiff)
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057650
RSA-1891-1991(O&M)
RSA-1895-1991(O&M)
RSA-1233-1994(O&M) 2024:PHHC:057650
is the appellant. In RSA No. 1233 of 1994, the same Sh. Rajinder Singh is
respondent No.1, the contesting respondent. Though, Sh. Rajinder Singh is not
represented in RSA No. 1233 of 1994, however, the issue that arises for
consideration is common. Sh. Rajinder Singh filed three appeals. Two appeals
were dismissed on 22.7.1991, whereas, the third appeal was allowed on
09.04.1994. Hence, the interest of Sh. Rajinder Singh, can be protected by the
appellant (who is appellant in RSA No.1891 and 1895 of 1991). Sh. Rajinder
Singh filed three suits for possession by way of pre-emption on the ground that
he has a superior right to pre-empt the sale deeds executed by co-sharers Smt.
Subhadra. All the three suits were dismissed because it was found that the
objections against naksha 'be' were finalized on 16.01.1991, i.e. before the date
of trial Court's judgments and decrees in all the three suits.
3. In two first appeals, the Courts below concluded that Sh. Rajinder
Singh was no longer a co-sharer on the date of judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court. Hence, the suit cannot be decreed. However, in the third appeal,
the Court held that in absence of the instrument of partition, the status of the
co-sharers continues till the date notified in the instrument of partition.
4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper-book.
5. Learned counsel representing the appellant-Sh. Rajinder Singh
contends that the status of the co-sharers will get severed on the day notified in
the instrument of partition. He submits that the defendants have failed to
produce the instrument of partition. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057650
RSA-1891-1991(O&M)
RSA-1895-1991(O&M)
RSA-1233-1994(O&M) 2024:PHHC:057650
representing the vendees submits that in view of the recent judgment passed in
'Jhabbar Singh (deceased) through legal heirs & others vs. Jagtar Sikngh
s/o Darshan Singh Singh' 2023(3)ICC 716, the status of the co-sharer will get
severed on the day naksha 'be' is confirmed and sanctioned. He submits that in
all these three cases, naksha 'be' was affirmed and sanctioned on 16.01.1991,
whereas, the judgment of the trial Court was passed on 27.02.1991.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel
representing the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jhabbar Singh's case (Supra) has
laid down that the moment naksha 'be' is sanctioned the status of the parties as
co-sharers comes to an end and it has no relation whatsoever to the date
notified in the 'Instrument of Partition' as it is just a ministerial work, i.e. it has
no relation to significant decisions making.
8. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in 'Pritam
Singh vs. Jaskaur Singh', has been reversed. The judgment passed by the
Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the RSA No. 1891 and 1895 of 1991 shall stand dismissed, whereas,
RSA No. 1233 of 1994 shall stand allowed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
26.04.2024
neeraj
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
