Dismissed

Jasmeet Singh and Anr. v. Savinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Nov 2018RSA/11/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a decree for partition of suit land. Justice Ramal held that revenue records established jointness and there were no disputes regarding the plaintiff's share. He ruled that construction expenses cannot invalidate the partition decree at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no findings in favor of the appellants.

Jasmeet Singh and Anr. Vs Savinder Singh — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.11 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.11 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:26.11.2018

¶5

Jasmeet Singh and another

¶6

... Appellants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Savinder Singh ... Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present:Mr. C.S.Jattana, Advocate for Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶12

The appellant-defendants have not been successful in defending the suit for partition in respect of land measuring 6 kanals 1 marla comprised in khasra no.1246(1-6) situated in the area of Bhikhi to the extent of 1/3 share.

¶13

The stand of the defendants was that suit land had already been partitioned and the plaintiff had left his share in the suit land and taken the land somewhere near the road. In lieu of such arrangement, the defendants had already spent 20 lakhs for raising the construction and the value of which at the time of filing of suit was 50 lakhs.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantdefendants submitted that huge amount has been spent on the construction and the said fact could not have been looked into by the Courts below.

¶15

SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.01 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶16

{2}

¶17

RSA No.11 of 2016 (O&M)

¶18

I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable, for, the revenue record established the jointness of the khewat. In the absence of any entry in the revenue record, defendants did not dispute 1/3 share of the plaintiff. The factum of possession can always be looked into while drawing the final decree but not at this stage.

¶19

As an upshot of my findings, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees under challenge which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.

¶20

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶21

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
November 26, 2018
savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶22

SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.01 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Jasmeet Singh and Anr. v. Savinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmeet Singh and Anr. v. Savinder Singh

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

M/S Capsugel Health Care Ltd. Vs Harish and Ors.

Satpal Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Panmeshwari and Another Vs Jaipal

Kanwar Bai and Anr. Vs Sudama

Ujjagar Singh & Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Gian Singh Vs Jeeto and Ors.