Dismissed

Gummi Devi v. Yash Pal

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Dec 2010CMPMO/428/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an original civil revision petition dismissing objections to a partition decree. The court rejected the argument that a shortfall in property area necessitated prior explanation before partition, noting that decree holders would receive their shares from the total available area. The petitioner's delay tactic was noted, and the stay order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, observations made regarding delay, and the stay order was vacated.

Gummi Devi Vs Yash Pal — Partition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No. 428 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision: 13.12.2010.

¶4

Gummi Devi and others

…Petitioners.

Versus

Yash Pal and others

…Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶12

For the petitioners: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Haresh Kumar Sood, Advocate. No.1,2,3,5(a) & 6.

¶13

Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)

¶14

This petition is directed against the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the judgement debtors) against the instrument of partition prepared by the Local Commissioner.

¶15

The undisputed facts are that the respondents (here-in-after referred to as the decree holders) filed a suit for partition of the suit property claiming therein that they were owners to the extent of 3/4^th share and were, therefore, entitled to get 3/4^th of the property by metes and

¶16

1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.

¶17

¶18

bounds. The undisputed facts are that a decree was passed on 29.4.2006 in Civil Suit No. 114 of 2001 wherein the decree holders were held entitled to 3/4^th share in the property. It is also not disputed that decree has never been challenged. As a consequence of the decree the learned trial Court appointed the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Kullu as Local Commissioner to go to the spot and define 3/4^th share of the decree holders in the suit property and prepare a sketch in this behalf. Originally, the suit had been filed in respect of Khasra No. 881 measuring 0-9-0 bighas. However, the Assistant Collector found that during settlement proceedings this khasra number had been assigned new khasra No. 419 and that total land at the spot only measured 0-7-10 bighs. Therefore, there was shortage of 1 biswas and 10 biswansis.

¶19

Main objection of the petitioners is that without first getting this short fall explained no partition by metes and bounds can be done. I am not at all in agreement with the contention raised by the judgement debtors. Admittedly, it is the judgement debtors who are in possession of the entire property. If the entire property is now 0-7-10

¶20

¶21

bighas the decree holders are going to get 3/4^th share out of that and not 9 biswas and therefore, the decree holders are not benefited by any shortfall in the area. It is more than apparent that since the judgement debtors are in possession of the entire suit property they want to delay the matter on one pretext or the other so that their possession is maintained. In case the petitioners have any objection with regard to the area they can raise it before the Settlement Officer, if such, remedy is still available to him under law. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Stay order is vacated. No order as to costs

¶22

13^th December, 2010 ™

¶23

(Deepak Gupta) Judge

Gummi Devi v. Yash Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gummi Devi v. Yash Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gehru Ram Vs State

H.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs United India Insurance Company

Ghanshayam Vs State

Union Bank of India Vs R.C.Sharma

Liaq Ram Vs State

Ram Krishan Vs Rajesh Vats