Defendant challenged concurrent decrees for partition, pleading an oral private partition among co-sharers. The High Court found no revenue record showing separate khewats or severance of joint status, and no cogent evidence of partition. Holding no substantial question of law arose, it dismissed the second appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1108-2019 (O&M) Reserved on : 21.10.2024 Pronounced on : 29.10.2024
Ram Dass
....Appellant
VERSUS
Tek Chand (deceased) & Ors.
....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-2687-C-2019
RSA-1108-2019
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.10.29 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-1108-2019
-2-
Karam Chand) and Smt. Shakuntla Devi (wife of Ram Kishan) vide registered sale deed dated 06.02.2002 and mutation had also been sanctioned in his favour. The share of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was 100/977 while the rest of the suit land belonged to the other co-sharers. As per the plaintiffrespondent No.1 the suit land had not been partitioned as yet by any court of law and the consent of the parties. It was averred that the defendants were cunning persons who wanted to alienate the land more than their share with specific portions and wanted to raise construction on the joint land without getting it partitioned. Hence, the suit. The suit was contested by several of the defendants including the defendant No.1-appellant who is the real brother of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. In the written statement preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel, mis joinder and non-joinder of parties, suppression of material facts, deficiency of court fee and lack of jurisdiction etc. It was the stand taken that the suit land had already been partitioned by way of oral partition between the share-holders and was not joint. It was alleged that the plaintiffrespondent No.1 was never in possession of the suit land and that all the coshares were in possession of their respective shares and were enjoying the same by raising construction. It was further stated that the defendants were exclusive owners in possession of their respective shares as per the partition and that the suit land had been partitioned by the consent of the parties and every co-sharer was in specific possession of his share. Both the brothers i.e. the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the defendant No.1-appellant were cultivating their land which came to their share. No replication was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1.
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.10.29 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-1108-2019
-3-
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.10.29 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-1108-2019
-4-
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.10.29 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-1108-2019
-5-
recorded by allotting separate khewats thereby indicating severance of the joint status of parties. There is nothing forthcoming to prove any such severance of status or private partition. The Trial Court recorded that “ But there is no evidence on record to show that any partition took place between the previous owners of the suit land. There is no evidence to show as to when the alleged partition took place between the parties” . The First Appellate Court also found that “ A perusal of copy of sale deed No.3285 dated 06.02.2002 (Ex.PW1/E) shows that plaintiff Tek Chand (since deceased) had purchased the land measuring 5 kanal 0 marla i.e. 100/977 share out of the land measuring 48 kanal 17 marla of khewat No.1438 and khatoni No.1838 from Sunita Rani and Smt. Shakuntla Devi for the sale consideration of Rs.1,06,500/-. A further perusal of jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Ex.PW1/B) shows that the suit land measuring 48 kanal 17 marla is gair mumkin land and the same is joint between the co-sharers and plaintiff Tek Chand (since deceased) is joint owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 100/977 share. From the aforesaid documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs, it is clearly evident that the suit land is joint between the parties and the same has not been partitioned by any court of law. Even there is no evidence on record to show that any oral partition has ever taken place between the previous owner of the suit land” . Learned counsel for the defendant No.1-appellant has been unable to point to any cogent and reliable evidence on the record to prove the allegation of the suit land having already been partitioned. No other point was argued.
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.10.29 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-1108-2019
-6-
in the present case which requires determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN ) 29.10.2024 JUDGE jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.10.29 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit land had already been partitioned by oral private partition such that a preliminary decree of partition could not be passed.
Ram Dass
Tek Chand (deceased)
Tek Chand (deceased) & Ors.
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
