Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender vs Ram Kumar And Others on 9 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002554
RSA-1232-2019 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:002554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1232-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision:09.01.2024
Rajender ... Appellant
Vs.
Ram Kumar & others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan Advocate for the appellant.
...
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. The instant regular second appeal has been filed against the
concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below vide which the suit of
the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Brief facts as per plaint are that the plaintiff and defendants
No.1 and 2 are the joint owners of land measuring 131 kanal 19 marlas as
per jamabandi for the year 2002-03 situated at Narnaund District Hisar as
detailed in the head note of the plaint. It was averred that the suit land was
yet to be partitioned by metes and bounds between the parties. Plaintiff is
owner in possession 822/2639 shares as co-sharer in the suit land.
Defendants No.1 and 2 filed partition application bearing No.18-T titled as
Ram Kumar Vs. Satbir in the Court of AC 2nd Grade who passed order dated
06.08.2012 vide which Naksha 'Kha' was sanctioned, order dated 06.09.2012
vide which Naksha 'Ga' was sanctioned and order dated 24.09.2012 vide
which memorandum of partition was prepared. It was alleged that the whole
partition proceedings are illegal and are a result of fraud and are merely a
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002554
RSA-1232-2019 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:002554
paper transaction and while initiating the partition proceedings principles of
natural justice were not followed.
3. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.2014
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and by first Appellate Court vide order
dated 17.07.2018, appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present regular
second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has contended that
the partition proceedings were initiated in haste and in collusion with
defendants No.1 and 2 and Naksha 'Kha' was prepared without even visiting
the spot by the field staff and was prepared in utter violation of the
sanctioned mode of partition. All the proceedings conducted were against
the law laid down under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. He has further
contended that the lower Courts have mis-construed and mis-interpreted the
facts of the case and it has not been appreciated that the procedure as laid
down in the Punjab Land Revenue Act was not followed while initiating the
partition proceedings.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through
the records thoroughly.
6. There is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the
partition proceedings were not conducted at the back of the
plaintiff/appellant in collusion with the defendants No.1 and 2 as alleged by
the plaintiff and rather plaintiff had attended the whole partition proceedings
and even his counsel remained present at the time of passing of the
impugned orders. Full opportunity was given to the plaintiff to file the reply
and he was having full knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings and
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002554
RSA-1232-2019 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:002554
willingly he did not file any reply. So, it does not lie in the mouth of the
appellant to say that the principles of natural justice were violated. If the
plaintiff was having any objection regarding order of Memorandum of
partition dated 24.09.2012 then he should have filed an appeal before the
revenue authorities instead of approaching the civil Court. So, both the
Courts have rightly held that the partition proceedings were legal and were
binding upon the plaintiff.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the present second appeal must
fail as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of
law.
9. Appeal stands dismissed.
( SUKHVINDER KAUR )
JUDGE
09.01.2024
harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002554
3 of 3
