Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hawa Singh And Others vs Ravinder And Others on 29 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:057539
RSA-3009-2019 (O&M) 1
110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-3009-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 25.04.2024
Date of Decision : 29.04.2024
Hawa Singh & Ors. ....Appellants
VERSUS
Ravinder & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-8154-C-2019
This is an application for condonation of delay of 14 days in
refiling the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 14 days in
refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.
RSA-3009-2019
1. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos.2 to 6-
appellants herein challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015
passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018
passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein filed a suit for partition of the suit property
measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas as detailed in para 1 of the plaint. It was
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057539
averred in the plaint that plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 had 39/210 share,
plaintiff-respondent No.5 had 2/21 share, plaintiff-respondent Nos.6 to 8 and
proforma defendant No.8 (respondent No.9 herein) had 2/21 share and rest
of the land was that of the defendants. It was further averred that no partition
had taken place, therefore, the suit for partition. On notice defendant Nos.1
to 7 (appellants and proforma respondent Nos.10 and 11) filed their written
statement taking a stand that plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 8 had no concern
with the suit land and that the predecessor-in-interest of the parties had
reached a mutual settlement whereby the predecessor-in-interest of the
plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 8 were given another piece of land in lieu of
the suit land and that since 1952 the land was in occupation of the
defendants and they had constructed 19 rooms, 4 bathrooms, 2 tube-wells
etc. Replication was filed denying the averments made in the written
statement and reiterating those made in the plaint.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed
by the Trial Court :
1. Whether parties to the suit are co-owners in joint
possession of suit land as alleged ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiffs being co-sharers are having
shares in the suit land if so to what extent ? OPP
3. Whether if issues proved, then plaintiffs being co-
sharers are entitled to decree of partition qua their shares
in the suit property by metes and bound with
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057539
consequential relief of mandatory injunction as prayed
for ? OPP
4. Whether present suit is not maintainable in the
present form ? OPD
5. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD
6. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the Court with
clean hands and have concealed true and material facts
from the Court ? OPD
7. Whether defendants No. 1 to 7 are owners of entire
suit land ? OPD
8. Whether the Court has not no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present suit ? OPD
9. Relief.
4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015
passed a preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was
preferred by the defendants which appeal was dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 01.10.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal by
defendant Nos.2 to 6-appellants. Defendant Nos.1 and 7 - Shamsher and
Ravinder - have chosen not to file the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 6-appellants would
contend that both the Courts have erred in passing the preliminary decree
and that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 8 should have been
dismissed. It is submitted that the suit was bad for partial partition inasmuch
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057539
as the property falling in the Lal Lakir had not been included in the suit. It is
further the contention of the learned counsel that there had been a mutual
settlement between the parties and the same was duly proved on the record
and hence the suit for partition ought to have been dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 to 6-
appellants.
7. In the present case, as per the jamabandis produced on the
record, the parties are shown to be owners of their respective shares. The
argument of the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 to 6-appellants that
the suit was bad for partial partition deserves to be rejected for the reason
that this was not the stand taken by them in their written statement nor any
issue was pressed regarding the said allegation. The learned counsel has also
not been able to refer to the arguments, if any, raised by the counsel for the
defendant Nos.2 to 6-appellants before both the Courts regarding the plea of
partial partition. No such plea was even canvassed in the grounds of appeal
filed before the First Appellate Court. In view thereof, the argument stands
rejected. Further still, the writing Mark D1, which has been relied upon by
the learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 6-appellants to contend that there
was a mutual settlement, was not proved in accordance with law. The
learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 6-appellants has not been able to
show to this Court an iota of evidence on the record to even remotely
suggest that there was another property which had been left out and had not
been included in the present suit. No reliance can be placed on the
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057539
document Mark D1 which has not been proved in accordance with law. No
other point was argued.
8. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being
devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
29.04.2024 JUDGE
Yogesh Sharma
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
