[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Singh Etc vs Zile Singh Etc on 24 February, 2026
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
Bharat Singh (since deceased)
Through His LRs and Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Zile Singh and others ...Respondents
*****
Reserved on 17.02.2026
Pronounced on: 24.02.2026
Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 9.
Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Robin Du), Advocate for respondent No.17.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Out of thirteen defendants before the trial Court, defendants
No.2 and 3 have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment &
decree dated 26.08.1994 passed by the learned Addi5onal District Judge,
Sonipat, whereby the appeal of the plain5ffs was allowed and a preliminary
decree for par55on was directed to be drawn. The said judgment reversed
the judgment & decree dated 20.10.1992 of the learned Sub Judge-III Class,
Sonipat, whereby the suit for possession by way of par55on had been
dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the par5es
shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The trial Court
Page N: 1 of total 9 Pages
1 of 9
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
record was requisi5oned and has been carefully examined.
3.1 Plain ffs' Case : The case set up by the plain5ffs is that seven
co-sharers were jointly allo)ed 2255 square yards of abadi land comprising
plots Nos. 1, 2, 7, 14, 15 and 72 in par55on proceedings arising out of Civil
Suit No.707 of 1938 5tled 'Harkishan etc. vs. Ramsarup etc.'
3.2 The succession of par5es from the original allo)ees is as
follows:
Original Allo;ee Present Successors
x Hari Singh x Plain5ffs No.1 to 3
x Devi Singh x Plain5ff No.4
x Tara Chand x Plain5ffs No.5 to 9
x Surat Singh x Defendants No.1 to 11
x Hira Singh & Khiali x Defendant No.12
x Tek Ram x Defendant No.13
3.3 It is further pleaded that the allotment of abadi land was made
on Hasab-Rasad-Rakba-Khewat basis, i.e. propor5onate to the agricultural
holdings of the co-sharers. The agricultural holdings of the predecessors
were stated to be as under:
Branch Agricultural Holding
(Bigha - Biswa)
x Plain5ffs' predecessors x 59 - 7
(Hari Singh, Devi Singh, Tara Chand)
x Surat Singh (defendants No.1-11) x 11 - 11
x Hira Singh & Khiali (defendant No.12) x 21 - 11
x Tek Ram (defendant No.13) x 11 - 9
Total (Actual) x 103 B - 18 B
Page N: 2 of total 9 Pages
2 of 9
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
Total (pleaded & reflected in evidence) x 102 B - 12 B
3.4 On the strength of the above, it is alleged that though
allotment of plots was joint, the defendants are occupying area in excess of
their legi5mate share, thereby necessita5ng par55on.
4.1 Defence of the Defendants : The defendants resisted the suit
primarily on the plea that the property already stood par55oned and each
branch was in exclusive possession of specific plots. Their stand regarding
allotment was:
Plot No. Alleged Exclusive Allo)ee
x 14 & 15 x Surat Singh (defendants No.1-11)
x 1&2 x Tara Chand, Devi Singh & Hari Singh
(Plain%ffs' predecessors)
x 7 x Hira Singh & Khiali (defendant No.12)
x 72 x Tek Ram (defendant No.13)
4.2 Thus, according to the defendants, the earlier allotment itself
cons5tuted final par55on and the suit was not maintainable.
5. Findings of the Trial Court : The trial Court, upon apprecia5on
of evidence, recorded a finding that the suit property was joint between the
par5es and liable to par55on. However, the suit was dismissed on the
ground that the plain5ffs had failed to plead and establish the precise
shares of the par5es, and in absence of determina5on of shares, an
executable decree for par55on could not be passed.
6. Findings of the First Appellate Court : In the appeal filed by
plain5ffs, the First Appellate Court affirmed the finding regarding jointness
of the property but reversed the conclusion of the trial Court on the issue of
shares. It held that in a suit for par55on, the Court is competent to
determine the respec5ve shares of co-sharers on the basis of evidence on
Page N: 3 of total 9 Pages
3 of 9
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
record even in absence of specific pleadings. The Appellate Court further
held that the 2255 sq. yards abadi land, having been jointly allo)ed, was
liable to be par55oned pro rata in propor5on to agricultural holdings. On
this basis, the plain5ffs were held en5tled to 1300 sq. yards, leading to
passing of a preliminary decree.
7. Submissions of the Appellants : Assailing the above reversal,
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contends that the Appellate
Court misconstrued the earlier decree by trea5ng agricultural land as
par55oned; that the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit due to absence of
pleading of shares; and that exclusive possession pursuant to earlier
allotment amounted to completed par55on. He prayed for restora5on of
trial court judgment.
8. Submissions of the Respondents : Per contra, learned counsel
for the plain5ffs - contes5ng respondents submits that there is concurrent
finding that the six plots were jointly allo)ed; that the earlier decree
establishes joint ownership over 2255 sq. yards; and that determina5on of
shares by the Appellate Court on Hasab-Rasad-Rakba-Khewat basis is
legally jus5fied and based on evidence on record. He accordingly prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
9. This Court has considered the rival submissions and carefully
perused the record.
10. Considera on by this Court : Having carefully examined the
findings recorded by the Courts below and the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellants, the controversy essen5ally revolves around
apprecia5on of documentary evidence rela5ng to the earlier par55on
decree of the year 1940, the nature of possession of the par5es, and
determina5on of shares on the basis of agricultural holdings. These aspects
are purely factual in nature. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court
Page N: 4 of total 9 Pages
4 of 9
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
of facts, has re-appreciated the en5re evidence and has recorded well-
reasoned findings holding the suit property to be joint and liable to
par55on.
11. For clarity, the jointly allo)ed suit property is summarized
below:
Sr. No. Plot No. Area (Sq. Yards)
Total Area 2255
12. It is well se)led that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Courts below are not open to interference in second appeal, unless shown
to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or suffering from
exclusion of material evidence.
13. In the present case, both the Courts below, upon apprecia5on
of the decree dated 14.05.1940 (Ex.P-12) and the a)endant evidence, have
consistently held that the six plots were jointly allo)ed to the predecessors
of the par5es and con5nue to retain the character of joint property.
14. The appellants have failed to point out any infirmity in the
apprecia5on of evidence or applica5on of law so as to a)ract the
jurisdic5on of this Court under Sec5on 100 CPC. The submissions advanced
merely seek re-evalua5on of factual findings, which is impermissible in
Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, the concurrent finding regarding
Page N: 5 of total 9 Pages
5 of 9
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
jointness of the suit property calls for no interference and gives rise to no
substan5al ques5on of law.
15. Though not pointed out by any of the par5es, but this court
no5ces discrepancy in the total agricultural holdings reflected in the
jamabandi. However, minor varia5on in old revenue entries is not
uncommon and cannot defeat substan5ve rights flowing from a binding
decree. The propor5onal adjustment undertaken by this Court is only to
opera5onalize the Hasab-Rasad-Khewat principle and to ensure equitable
distribu5on of the abadi land without crea5ng excess en5tlement.
16. As noted earlier, the agricultural holdings forming the basis of
propor5on are:
Branch Agricultural Holding
(Bigha - Biswa)
x Plain5ffs' predecessors x 59 - 7
(Hari Singh, Devi Singh, Tara Chand)
x Surat Singh (defendants No.1-11) x 11 - 11
x Hira Singh & Khiali (defendant No.12) x 21 - 11
x Tek Ram (defendant No.13) x 11 - 9
Total (Actual) x 103 B - 18 B
Total (pleaded & reflected in evidence) x 102 B - 12 B
17. Accordingly, the 2255 square yards of abadi land comprising six
plots is required to be par55oned Hasab-Rasad-Khewat, i.e. in propor5on
to the respec5ve agricultural holdings of the par5es and their predecessors
out of the total holding of 102 bigha 12 biswa, as borne out from the
evidence on record. However, the revenue entries reflect the aggregate
holding as 103 bigha 18 biswa, resul5ng in an excess of 26 biswa, which is
required to be propor5onately adjusted amongst the par5es while
Page N: 6 of total 9 Pages
6 of 9
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
determining their respec5ve shares.
18. The propor5onate en5tlement in the abadi land before
adjustment worked out as:
Branch Ini7al Area (Sq. Yards)
x Plain5ffs' predecessors x 1304
(Hari Singh, Devi Singh, Tara Chand)
x Surat Singh (defendants No.1-11) x 253
x Hira Singh & Khiali (defendant No.12) x 473
x Tek Ram (defendant No.13) x 251
Total x 2281
19. Since the actual area available for par55on is 2255 sq. yards,
the excess of 26 sq. yards has been propor5onately deducted, leading to
the final workable shares:
Branch Final Area (Sq. Yards)
x Plain5ffs' predecessors x 1289
(Hari Singh, Devi Singh, Tara Chand)
x Surat Singh (defendants No.1-11) x 250
x Hira Singh & Khiali (defendant No.12) x 468
x Tek Ram (defendant No.13) x 248
Total x 2255
20. The above exercise merely quan5fies the shares to make the
decree executable and does not alter substan5ve rights.
21. Since the dispute relates to ancestral village abadi land jointly
held by different branches of the same proprietary body for several
Page N: 7 of total 9 Pages
7 of 9
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
decades, therefore, par55on in such circumstances is intended to secure
peaceful enjoyment of property rather than to perpetuate technical
objec5ons. The decree merely separates exis5ng rights without dives5ng
any party of its legi5mate en5tlement.
22. Viewed from this equitable perspec5ve as well, the decree
promotes finality and minimizes future discord amongst co-sharers.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity
in the well-reasoned findings recorded by the First Appellate Court holding
the suit property to be joint and liable to par55on. The modifica5on carried
out herein is only to the limited extent of specifying the precise shares of
the par5es so as to render the preliminary decree workable and executable.
No substan5al ques5on of law arises for considera5on in the present
appeal. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of with the modifica5on of the
preliminary decree to the extent indicated hereinabove. Pending
miscellaneous applica5ons, if any, also stand disposed of.
24. In order to give effect to the preliminary decree, the par5es
shall appear before the trial Court within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a cer5fied copy of this judgment for ini5a5on of final
decree proceedings. The trial Court shall appoint a Local
Commissioner/Revenue Expert, preferably conversant with village abadi
par55on, who shall visit the spot aLer due no5ce to all par5es; prepare a
proposed mode of par55on strictly in accordance with the shares declared
in the preliminary decree (as per Para No. 19 of this judgment as above);
ensure, as far as prac5cable, compact allotment and preserva5on of
exis5ng residen5al structures; and submit a detailed report along with site
plan indica5ng proposed allotments.
25. The trial Court shall thereaLer consider objec5ons, if any, and
Page N: 8 of total 9 Pages
8 of 9
RSA-3046-1994 (O&M)
proceed to pass the final decree in accordance with law.
26. It is clarified that while effec5ng par55on by metes and
bounds, the Local Commissioner and the trial Court shall keep in view the
following principles:
x exis5ng possession and residen5al construc5ons shall be respected
to the extent feasible without disturbing the declared shares;
x access, passages, and common ameni5es, if any, shall be suitably
preserved;
x minor varia5on in measurements arising out of on-site adjustment
shall be compensated by equitable adjustment rather than reopening
the shares; and
x the final decree shall clearly describe the allo)ed por5ons with
boundaries so as to avoid ambiguity at the execu5on stage.
27. These safeguards are issued to ensure that the decree a)ains
finality and to obviate mul5plicity of proceedings amongst co-sharers in
future.
28. A preliminary decree of par55on be passed in above terms.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly. All other miscellaneous applica5ons
stand disposed of.
24.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Uploaded on 24.02.2026
Page N: 9 of total 9 Pages
9 of 9
