The Single Judge dismissed a second appeal against concurrent findings that a sale of a co-sharer's property share by a person in settled possession was valid. The court held no ground existed to declare such a sale void or grant injunction.
The second appeal was ordered to stand dismissed as it was without merit.
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.3054 of 2015 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3054 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2015
Satya Bhushan
..... Appellant
Versus
Mahavir Parshad and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal having lost in both the courts below. The suit was for declaration to the effect that the defendant, a cosharer, had sold a specific portion of the property to third parties who are also the arrayed defendants. It is not disputed that partition of property has not taken place among the co-sharers. It is also not disputed that the land is not agricultural and is in abadi where buildings exist in the suit land where the private residences of the co-sharers lie. A categorical finding has been returned by the courts below that parties to the dispute have been in long settled possession of their respective parts and portions of the joint property.
Therefore, if one of such persons sells his share in the property to third parties, which he has a right to, then to the extent of his share, the sale cannot be faulted. In case, khasra numbers are mentioned in the sale deed they would be read down to mean share without specific reference to any
MANJU 2015.07.30 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
-2-
RSA No.3054 of 2015 (O&M)
specific khasra number or any inch of the land and competing and conflicting claims would remain open to partition proceedings and division of property.
On these premises, the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has failed. The lower courts have refused to issue declaration or grant injunction to the plaintiff complaining that his cosharer has sold specific part of the property. So long as the plaintiff was himself in settled possession of any part of suit property, then it does not lie in his mouth to complain.
In the circumstances, parties ultimately will be governed by partition, if and when it takes place.
No ground is made out to interfere in second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below which require scant re-examination by this court in second appeal.
No question of law, much less a substantial one arises for consideration.
The appeal being without merit is ordered to stand dismissed.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE
28.07.2015 manju
MANJU 2015.07.30 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a court should grant declaration and injunction against a sale of a co-sharer's share when the seller was in long settled possession of that portion.
Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal regarding land partition dispute.
Whether unfitment of partition proceedings affects the validity of a sale of a specific share in joint property.
Satya Bhushan
Mahavir Parshad
Rajiv Narain Raina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
