Dismissed

Garib Dass v. Harshi Ram & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Dec 2013RSA/2967/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning a dismissed partition suit for possession of residential houses, the Chandigarh High Court found that earlier witness depositions proved a prior partition on the principle of metes and bounds. The court rejected the appellant's claim as misusing judicial process for greed and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed.

Garib Dass Vs Harshi Ram & Anr. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2014.01.02 12:56I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

RSA No.2967 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2967 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.12.2013

Garib Dass

....Appellant

Versus

Harshi Ram and Anr.

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

JASWANT SINGH, J

¶13

C.M.No.7952-C of 2012

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 227 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶15

RSA No.2967 of 2012(O&M)

¶16

Plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below whereby his suit for possession by way of partition has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhari and the findings affirmed in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 18.5.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge,

¶17

Yamuna Nagar.

¶18

Plaintiff filed a suit for possession upto the extent of 1-3^rd

¶19

RSA No.2967 of 2012(O&M) #2#

¶20

share in residential houses situated within the abadi deh of village Sabapur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, which was opposed by defendant No.2-Chamela Ram only as defendant No.1 had been proceeded ex parte by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.8.2004.

¶21

After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the suit and the findings affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, hence the present appeal.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book with his able assistance. I find no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.

¶23

It transpires that the plaintiff-appellant as well as both the defendants/respondents are real brothers and it is alleged that the suit properties have not been partitioned by metes and bounds as the defendants are not giving the equal share to the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. It further transpires that on earlier occasion also, plaintiff filed an injunction suit titled as Garib Dass Vs. Chamela Ram, however, the same was dismissed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 16.4.2004. Again, the present suit has been filed for possession of the alleged 1-3^rd share.

¶24

Plaintiff himself has produced one Sulekh ChandLambardar of the Village as PW2 and he has deposed that all three brothers have raised the constructions of their respective houses. This witness has also admitted that Khasra Nos.204 and 232 were allotted to

¶25

#3#

¶26

RSA No.2967 of 2012(O&M)

¶27

Mangal Ram-father of the litigating parties, who divided the same among three brothers before raising their construction. This witness has further admitted that said Mangal Ram also suffered a decree during his life time qua the Ghadda khad in favour of all three sons and thus, the whole case of the plaintiff stands negated.

¶28

Still further, both the learned courts below had the occasion to peruse the earlier judgment dated 16.4.2004 in which the plaintiffappellant has himself admitted the factum of partition between the parties as well as raising of constructions by all three brothers as per their shares.

¶29

In view of the above, it is apparently clear that the plaintiff-

¶30

appellant is misusing the process of the court just for his greed.

¶31

No substantial question of law is involved in the present

¶32

appeal for adjudication under Section 100 CPC.

¶33

Dismissed.

¶34

December 06, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Garib Dass v. Harshi Ram & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garib Dass v. Harshi Ram & Anr.

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

Raj Kumar Vs Behari Lal

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs Maha Singh and Ors.

Veerpal Kaur Vs Balwinder Pal

Parampreet Kaur Vs Malkeet Singh

Satnam Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh & Ors.

Bhagwanti and Ors. Vs Shanti Devi and Ors.