The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal against lower courts' findings that a partition of agricultural land among nine brothers occurred in 1974-75 and remains final, distinguishing a prior judgment relied upon by the appellant which required revenue records for validity.
The appeal and the application for stay are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 2334 of 2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No. 6921-C of 2008 , CM No. 6922-C of 2008 and RSA No. 2334 of 2008
Date of Decision: January 14 , 2010
Ujagar Singh
...... Appellant
Versus
Daljity Singh and others
...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant.
Ajay Tewari, J.
CM No. 6921-C of 2008
For the reasons recorded, delay of 6 days in refiling the present
appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 6922-C of 2008
For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Persons mentioned in para 2 of the application are impleaded as legal representatives of respondent-defendant No.4 Darshan Singh son of Pakhar Singh. Registry to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.
RSA No. 2334 of 2008
2
RSA No. 2334 of 2008
This is an appeal against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for partition of land. Both the courts have found as a fact that the property in dispute was partitioned between the nine brothers way back in 1974-75 and that thereafter the parties have continued in possession of their respective shares.
The following questions have been proposed:-
In respect of question No. I, learned counsel has relied upon a
judgment of this Court in Arjan Singh v. Hem Raj reported as 1986 RRR 458. That was a case where one of the brothers sold the entire property belonging to the other brothers also by relying on an oral partition which was denied by the other brothers. It was in that context that this court held as follows:-
RSA No. 2334 of 2008
3
trial Court, in reading the statement of one of the plaintiff's to mean that agricultural land was partitioned. The learned counsel for the vendees could not read a line from the statement of the plaintiff to the effect that agricultural land was even partitioned between the parties or along with other co-sharers. If that had been so, it would have been duly recorded in the revenue records.”
However, in the instant case the witnesses of the appellant themselves admit that partition between the parties had taken place more than 30 years ago ; that originally the appellant had been given two portions of land and that he had exchanged one of them with another brother. In this view of the settled situation, in my opinion, the judgment relied upon would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. As regards questions No II and III once the courts below have come to a finding of fact that the partition between the parties was effected more than 30 years ago and that in fact all the brothers including the appellant had constructed their houses on their own shares these questions pale into insignificance. Question No. (IV) is a general question which requires no detailed discussion.
Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
January 14 , 2010 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether partition becomes valid and final only if brought to the notice of revenue authorities and khata is separated?
Whether a co-sharer continues to be a joint owner unless joint land is divided by metes and bounds?
Whether non-disputing the correctness of jamabandi gives an inference that suit land is joint?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arjan Singh v. Hem RajDistinguished¶34
1986 RRR 458
Ujagar Singh
Daljity Singh and others
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
