Dismissed

Haripal and Anr. v. Swarni and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2009RSA/5296/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a partition suit, the court dismissed the challenge to the preliminary decree. It held that the deceased owner Bhagwan Dass had four sons, so all their heirs are entitled to an equal 1/4th share, rendering the appeal without merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of with an observation that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are entitled to a 1/4th share, while the heirs of the other three sons of Bhagwan Dass are entitled to a 1/

Haripal and Anr. Vs Swarni and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

R.S.A.No.5296 of 2003

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A.No.5296 of 2003

¶5

Date of Decision : 03.07.2009

Haripal and Another

...Appellants

Versus

Swarni and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶12

Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶13

Mr. R.S.Attwal, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶14

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Defendant Nos.1 and 3, sons of Garibu are in second appeal against the decree passed in a suit for separate possession filed by Swarni wife of Karma and Paramjit son of Karma.

¶16

One Bhagwan Dass was the owner of the suit property. He had four sons namely Karma, Garibu, Joginder and Dalipa. Wife and son of pre-deceased son Karma have filed the present suit for separate possession impleading other sons of Karma as defendant Nos.7 and 8. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are sons of Garibu. Defendant No.5 Joginder Singh and defendant No.6 Dalipa are the sons of Bhagwan Dass.

¶17

The learned trial Court in para 10 has given a finding that plaintiff alongwith defendant Nos.7 and 8 are the owners to the extent of 1/4^th share of the suit land. The plea of the defendants that the suit property was exclusive property of Garibu has been negated. In view of the said fact, all the four sons of Bhagwan Dass or their legal heirs will

¶18

R.S.A.No.5296 of 2003

¶19

¶20

get 1/4^th share in the estate of Bhagwan Dass.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that while granting preliminary decree, the share of the other sons of Bhagwan Dass have not been specified, therefore, the preliminary decree passed is not in accordance with Order 20 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶22

I do not find any merit in the argument raised. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that Bhagwan Dass was the last owner of the suit property and that he had four sons. In view of the said fact, his four sons or their legal heirs will get 1/4^th share each. Even the judgments of the Courts are to this effect.

¶23

Therefore, the present appeal is disposed of, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties to clarify, if any, is required that the preliminary decree passed by the Courts below is to the effect that the plaintiff/defendant Nos.7 and 8 are entitled to 1/4^th share, whereas other three sons or their legal heirs are entitled to 1/4^th share each.

¶24

With the said observation, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶25

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶26

03.07.2009 Vimal

Haripal and Anr. v. Swarni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haripal and Anr. v. Swarni 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

Manohar Lal Vs Harjit Kaur and Anr.

(O&M)Gram Panchayat Vs Satnam Singh & Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Sube Ram etc.

Manoj and Anr. Vs Dinesh and Ors.

Jaswant Singh Vs Basti Ram

Hawa Singh and Others Vs Ram Kumar