Parkash Chand vs Sat Pal And Others on 5 September, 2009

RSA No. 3208 of 2009                                      (1)

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                       RSA No. 3208 of 2009
                                       Date of Decision: 5.9.2009


Parkash Chand                                       ......Appellant

             Versus

Sat Pal and others                                  .......Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present: Shri Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the appellant.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).

The present appellant is aggrieved against the orders of the

Courts below, granting a final decree in respect of the partition of the

property in dispute.

The appellant has 1/9th share in the property in dispute. Shri

Dev Raj Gupta, was appointed as a Local Commissioner for preparation of

the final decree, to suggest the mode of partition. The present appellant did

not challenge the order appointing the Local Commissioner. In the

objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, there was no objection

raised by the appellant that the property in dispute is not partible or that the

mode of partition is not fair and/or proper. The only objection raised by the

appellant was that he has made improvement worth Rs.1,50,000/- and the

Local Commissioner has not assessed the value of such improvements.

RSA No. 3208 of 2009 (2)

Learned trial Court dismissed the objections and passed an

order of preparation of a final decree on 14.12.2006. Such order has been

affirmed in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court has recorded that the

appellant has not raised any objection that the house in dispute is not

partible or that the valuable portion has been given to respondent Nos. 1

and 2.

The reasoning given by the Courts below cannot be said to be

unjustified. The appellant has not raised any objection regarding the mode

of partition or that the property is not partible. Therefore, it is not open to

the appellant to dispute the mode of partition before the first Appellate

Court or before this Court.

Consequently, I do not find that the finding recorded suffers

from any patent illegality or material irregularity, which may give rise to

any substantial question of law in the present appeal.

Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
05-09-2009
ds