Dismissed

Jagdish and Anr. v. Tek Ram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2009RSA/1771/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the second appeal challenging a decree for partition. It held that the plaintiff, a co-sharer, was entitled to seek partition for the land he purchased alone. The lower courts' factual findings were not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose to justify intervention in this second appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no merit.

Jagdish and Anr. Vs Tek Ram and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Regular Second Appeal No. 1771 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 12, 2009

Jagdish and another

.....Appellants

Versus

Tek Ram and others

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶12

Suit filed by Tek Ram-respondent No.1 for possession of specific portion by way of partition of suit land measuring 10 Kanals 6 Marlas was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar on March 23, 2006, which judgment and decree was upheld in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar on January 23, 2008. Aggrieved of the same, two of the defendants have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶13

The short question involved in the appeal is as to whether

¶14

R.S.A. No. 1771 of 2008 -2-

¶15

Tek Ram plaintiff/respondent No.1 had purchased the land exclusively or he was just a co-sharer alongwith the other owners. The sale of a specific portion of land described by particular Khasra numbers by a co-owner out of joint Khewat would still remain sale of share out of the joint land and the purchaser would also become cosharer in possession alongwith other co-owners. Mere fact that there was recital in the sale deed of a private partition would not mean that the partition by metes and bounds had taken place.

¶16

From the testimony of PW1 Ram Gopal, who was appointed as Local Commissioner, it stands established that the plaintiff was in possession of less land as purchased by him vide sale deed Ex.P8 dated 2.12.1998, whereas the defendants-appellants were in possession of a part of the suit land. The appellants also failed to produce any document/material to establish their ownership over the suit property. Under these circumstances, plaintiff-respondent No.1, being co-sharer alongwith other co-sharers, could seek partition so as to occupy the land exclusively which had been purchased by him under the aforementioned sale deed.

¶17

The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither perverse nor suffering from any illegality or infirmity. These findings cannot be upset in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not

¶18

R.S.A. No. 1771 of 2008 -3-

¶19

otherwise. The various law points as stated by learned counsel for the appellants in para 15 of the grounds of appeal, do not arise for consideration. Even these law points cannot be said to be substantial in nature so as to justify their determination in the second appeal.

¶20

Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

( T.P.S. MANN ) August 12, 2009 JUDGE satish

Jagdish and Anr. v. Tek Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish and Anr. v. Tek Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sham Agencies General Merchants etc. Vs PNB etc.

Mangat Ram and Ors. Vs Sunder Devi and Ors.

Renuka Vs Aditya

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sarwan Singh and Ors.

Kishan Lal & Ors. Vs Surya Kant Saini & Anr.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Jaswanti