R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 06, 2009
Sharanjit Kaur and others ...........Appellants
Versus
Sukhdev Singh and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.M.S.Dhami, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the respondents
**
Sabina, J.
Sukhdev Singh and others filed a suit for separate vacant
possession to the extent of 3/4th share in the property in dispute by way of
partition by metes and bounds. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the
Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dasuya vide judgment and decree dated
13.8.2005. The appeal filed by the defendant-Baldev Singh (through his
legal representatives) was dismissed by the Additional District Judge,
Hoshiarpur dated 6.10.2008. Hence, the present appeal.
The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional
District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:-
“2. The property in dispute, description of which is given in the
head of the plaint was originally owned and possessed by Hari
Singh, father of plaintiff Nos. 1,2 and defendant and husband of
plaintiff No.3. After the death of Hari Singh, suit property was
inherited by plaintiffs and defendant in equal shares. The suit
R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 2property is still joint, although the plaintiffs and defendants under
their mutual arrangements are occupying the suit property
separately. The house shown in annexure I is in possession of the
plaintiffs, where as residential construction shown in annexure III
is in possession of the defendant. The plaintiffs are in possession
of two rooms shown in annexure II. The construction shown in
annexure I and III is old construction, whereas construction
shown in annexure II is new one and raised by the plaintiffs after
spending huge amount. After the death of Hari Singh in the year
1994, defendant Sukhdev Singh filed civil suit claiming his share
to the extent of ½, which was dismissed on 19.9.1996. The appeal
filed by him was also dismissed by Ld.District Judge. It was
pleaded that after the death of Hari Singh, mutation of his estate
was sanctioned in the name of plaintiffs and defendant in equal
share. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs cannot get benefit of
their share in the suit property without partition by metes and
bounds, which necessitated the filing of the present suit.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant who appeared
and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that
defendant is owner to the extent of ½ share in the property of his
father Hari Singh and he is also recorded to be owner to the extent
of ½ share in the record of Municipal Committee; suit is not
properly valued. On merits, admitting the joint ownership of the
properties, it was pleaded that plaintiff No.1 an defendant have
inherited the property of their father in equal shares, thus
question of share of defendants No. 2 an 3 in the suit property
R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 3does not arise. Denying the other averments of the plaint, it was
pleaded that development over the suit property was made out of
the joint income of the parties and plaintiff No.1 has no right to
claim specific portion out of the suit property. Even otherwise
every person who is developing a joint property, raises
construction at his own risk. As regards sanctioning of the
mutation in favour of all the legal heirs. It was pleaded that
mutation was wrongly entered in the name of plaintiffs No. 2 and
3. Other averments were specifically denied and in the last prayer
was made for dismissal of the suit with costs.”
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for separate vacant
possession over disputed property to the extent of ¾ share by way
of partition?OPP
2. Whether the suit is not properly verified?OPD
3. Whether the share of defendants in the disputed property is to
the extent of ½ share ?OPD.
4. Relief”.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that there is no merit in this appeal.
Plaintiffs by way of the present suit sought parition of the
property in dispute. The case of the defendant-Baldev Singh was that he
was owner of the suit property to the extent of half share. In previous
litigation between the parties, the defendant had claimed half share in the
property left by deceased-Hari Singh. However, the said suit filed by
R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 4
defendant-Baldev Singh was dismissed and the appeal filed against the said
judgment and decree was maintained by the appellate Court. In these
circumstances, the Courts below rightly rejected the plea of the appellants to
the effect that they were owners of half share of the suit property. So far as
the assessment record of the Municipal Committee is concerned, no reliance
could be placed on the same to hold that the defendant-Baldev Singh was
owner to the extent of half share. The said record does not furnish any
proof of ownership or title and is merely maintained with regard to entries
of payment of house tax. The suit property was, admittedly, owned by Hari
Singh. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 (Sukhdev Singh and Jatinder Kaur) and
defendant (Baldev Singh) are sons of Hari Singh,whereas, plaintiff No.3
(Rawal Kaur) is widow of Hari Singh. The plaintiffs as well as defendant-
Baldev Singh inherited the property left by Hari Singh in equal shares. In
these circumstances, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts
below do not call for any interference.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second
appeal which would warrant interference by this Court . Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed.
( Sabina )
Judge
July 06, 2009
arya