Dismissed

Jai Shee Ram v. Jagpal Saini etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2009RSA/3259/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal challenging a decree dismissing a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction between co-sharers, holding partition to be the appropriate remedy. The order also recalled an order dismissing a related appeal in default.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit as the correct remedy for a co-sharer is partition. An earlier order dismissing the appeal in default was recalled.

Jai Shee Ram Vs Jagpal Saini etc. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No.3259 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 1.5.2009

Jai-Shee Ram

......Appellant

Versus

Jagpal Saini and others

¶7

......Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)

¶12

CM No.2377-C of 2009

¶13

For the reasons mentioned in this application, the application is allowed. Order dated 13.1.2009 dismissing the appeal in default, is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.

¶14

CM No.9757 of 2008

¶15

Allowed as prayed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

CM No.9759 & 9760-C of 2008

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I find sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 4 days and 196 days in filing and refiling the appeal.

¶18

CMs stand disposed of accordingly.

¶19

RSA No.3259 of 2008(O&M)

¶20

This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below dismissing his suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 13.3.1991 executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff and further for mandatory injunction to the effect that defendant No.3 be directed to restore the vacant possession of the plot in the suit property.

¶21

RSA No.3259 of 2008(O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

While dismissing the suit, the trial Court found that the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the suit land and his suit seeking declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants, who were co-sharers, was not maintainable. It was also observed by the trial Court that the plaintiff who is a co-sharer in the suit land can seek possession of his share by way of partition. On appeal, the Lower Appellate Court affirmed these findings. It is also relevant to mention that the defendant-respondents have not challenged the aforesaid findings of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to find fault with the aforesaid findings reached by the Courts below.

¶24

Thus, I find no merit in this appeal.

¶25

No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.

¶26

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶27

May 1, 2009 ps

Jai Shee Ram v. Jagpal Saini etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Shee Ram v. Jagpal Saini etc.

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

Hardip Singh Vs Gurvinder Kaur etc.

Memuna and Anr. Vs Zakir Hussain and Anr.

Chander Bhan Vs M/S Raj Kumar and Co.

Harvinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Gagan Gupta

Pargan Singh Vs Harbans Lal & Ors.

Harbans Kaur and Anr. Vs Jagdeep Singh and Anr.