Dismissed

Ajaib Kaur Deceased Thru Lr. Balwinder Kaur and Anr. v. Bhajan Singh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC25 May 2018RSA/2848/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a regular second appeal filed by defendants against a decree for property partition. The single judge held there was no illegality or perversity in lower court findings regarding non-hearing of a distant relative and invalidity of adverse possession plea.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgments and decrees of courts below.

Ajaib Kaur Deceased Thru Lr. Balwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs… — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.2848 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2848 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:25.05.2018

¶5

Ajaib Kaur deceased through LR and another ... Appellants

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Bhajan Singh and another ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

Present:Mr. S.P.Soi, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶11

Appellant-defendants No.1 and 2 are in Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, whereby, suit at the instance of the respondent-plaintiffs for possession by way of partition of land measuring 4K-12M comprising in khewat no.149, 181 khatauni no.152, 182, khasra no.258, 259, 150, 75 and 158 vide jamabandi for the year 2001-02 situated at village Bhaurla, Tehsil Samrala District Ludhiana by metes and bounds, has been decreed by the trial Court and the defendants had not been successful in challenging the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, therefore, appellant-defendants No.1 and 2 approached this Court by filing the present Regular Second Appeal.

¶12

Mr. S.P.Soi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-

¶13

defendants No.1 and 2 submits that suit of the respondent-plaintiffs for partition in the absence of impleadment of Atma Singh or his legal heirs as

¶14

Savita 2018.05.28 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶15

RSA No.2848 of 2016 (O&M) {2}

¶16

party, was not maintainable. In fact, suit property was already partitioned and the parties had been living separately by raising the construction. Despite raising the aforementioned objection, the Court below negated the plea, therefore, there is illegality and perversity in the findings under challenging. Even the appellants had also raised plea of adverse possession which can always be taken against the co-sharers.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants No.1 and 2, appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Soi, for, concededly, suit was filed claiming ownership of the property with regard to Atma Singh on behalf of Harcharan Singh, who was real brother/colateral, was not heard for the last more than 25-30 years.

¶18

The plaintiffs had laid the claim for partition of four khasras bearing numbers 258(1-0), 150(1-10), 75(0-16) and 158(1-3). Concededly, the appellants had taken plea of adverse possession. No doubt, the plea of adverse possession by co-sharers against other co-sharers is available but for establishing the continuous and uninterrupted possession, much less to the knowledge of other co-sharers has to be proved. The appellants have miserably failed to prove the aforementioned fact. No objection had been taken with regard to non-hearing of Atma Singh as specifically alleged in the plaint. Even the relationship of Atma Singh with co-lateral was not denied or no contrary evidence in this regard had been led.

¶19

During the course of hearing, Mr. Soi has raised an argument that jamabandi reflects only two khasra numbers, i.e., 258 and 259 and not

¶20

Savita 2018.05.28 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

RSA No.2848 of 2016 (O&M) {3}

¶22

with regard to other khasra numbers, i.e.,150, 75 and 158 but the aforementioned arguments, in my view, is also not tenable, for, khasra numbers 150, 75 and 158 pertains to abadi area, obviously for that area no revenue record. This is what the import of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

¶23

As an upshot of my findings, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below 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.

¶24

No other argument has been raised.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶26

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 25, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶27

Savita 2018.05.28 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Ajaib Kaur Deceased Thru Lr. Balwinder Kaur and Anr. v. Bhajan Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaib Kaur Deceased Thru Lr. Balwinder Kaur and Anr. v. Bhajan Singh and Another

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

Xen Efficiency Division and Ors. Vs Manish Malik

Chanan Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Teekam Vs Yogender Kumar Sharma

Paramjit Kaur & Anr. Vs Piara Singh

Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs Partap Singh

Aman Garg and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar and Others