Dismissed¶36

(O&M) Ajit Singh v. Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Regular Second Appeal – partition suit

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2025RSA/3209/2002

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 3209 of 2002 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Deepak Gupta J., decided 14.11.2025. Partition of properties 'A' and 'B' between brothers (sons of Hari Singh) and nephew (son of deceased uncle Mohan Singh). Key points: preliminary decree vs final decree stages; exclusive possession claim over residential house premature; equities/convenience at final decree per Phool chand v. Gopal Lal AIR 1967 SC 1470; Section 100 CPC — no substantial question of law; concurrent findings not perverse; shares 5/16, 3/16, 1/2 (property A) and 1/2, 1/2 (property B); appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The present appeal arises out of a preliminary decree; at this stage the Court is required only to determine the shares of the parties. ¶22

(O&M) Ajit Singh Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant (defendant No.1) is entitled to retain exclusive possession of property 'B' and exclude it from partition on the ground that his house exists thereon. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The present appeal arises out of a preliminary decree; at this stage the Court is required only to determine the shares of the parties.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The mode and manner of partition, including questions relating to possession, structures, and equities, fall within the domain of the Court while drawing the final decree.

¶22

Key takeaways

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phool chand v. Gopal Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1470, matters concerning equities and convenience can be appropriately considered at the stage of final decree; thus, constructive equities and existing possession can be suitably balanced during final decree proceedings.ratio¶23
The appellant's plea regarding existence of a house on property 'B' is clearly premature; the appellant shall be at liberty to raise such plea before the Court at the stage of preparation of the final decree, where the executing Court may suitably take note of occupation, convenience, and relative equities.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal — partition suit — preliminary decree stage. Appellant (defendant No.1) contended that since his house exists on property 'B', he was entitled to retain exclusive possession and the property should not be partitioned. Held: an appeal arising out of a preliminary decree requires the Court only to determine the shares of the parties; the mode and manner of partition, including possession, structures and equities, fall within the domain of the Court while drawing the final decree. Relying on Phool chand v. Gopal Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1470, the Court held that equities and convenience can be appropriately considered at the final decree stage, and the appellant's plea was premature — liberty reserved to raise it before the executing Court at the final decree stage. Shares as recorded by the Courts below remained undisputed (property 'A': plaintiff 5/16, defendant No.1 3/16, defendant No.2 1/2; property 'B': plaintiff 1/2, defendant No.1 1/2). No perversity, misreading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out; under Section 100 CPC interference is permissible only where a substantial question of law arises, and none arose — the appeal being founded solely on a factual assertion about the existence of a house, irrelevant at the preliminary decree stage. Regular Second Appeal dismissed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶1

RSA No. 3209 of 2002

¶2

IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA No. 3209 of 2002 (O&M) Reserved on: 12.11.2025 Pronounced on : 14.11.202 5 Uploaded on : 14.11.2025

Ajit Singh

… Appellant

Versus

Harbhajan Singh & Anr.

¶8

…Respondent s

¶9

CORAM: HO N ’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GU P TA

¶10

Argued by:- Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate For respondent No.1. ***

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶13

The present Regular Se c ond Appeal is directed agains t the judgme n ts and decrees passed by the C ourts below, whereby the sui t for separate possession by way of partition i nstituted by plaintiff Harbhaja n Singh (resp o ndent herein) was decreed b y the learned trial Court o n 15.01.2000, a nd the appeal preferred by de f endant No.1 Ajit Singh (presen t appellant) w as dismissed by the learn e d First Appellate Court vid e judgment d a ted 30.03.2002, thereby affirming the findings of the tria l Court.

¶14

For the sake of clarity, the par t ies are being referred to as pe r their status b efore the learned trial Court.

¶15

The plaintiff and defendant N o .1 are real brothers being son s of Shri Har i Singh. Defendant No.2 Satn a m Singh is the son of thei r deceased u n cle Mohan Singh. The disp u te relates to two propertie s described in the head-note of the plaint a s items ‘A’ and ‘B’. The plaintif f claimed 5/1 6 share in property ‘A’; and 1/ 2 share in property ‘B’, allegin g difficulty in e njoying the properties jointly, and thus sought their partition. 4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit only in respect o f prope r ty ‘B’, asserting exclusive ow n ership on the ground that hi s

¶16

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page N: 1 of 3 Pages

¶18

RSA No. 3209 of 2002

¶19

reside n tial house existed on that port i on, and therefore, it should no t be su b jected to partition.

¶20

Upon due appreciatio n of oral and documentar y evide n ce, the learned trial Court d e creed the suit and passed a preliminary decree defining the sha r es of the parties. The learne d First Appellate Court affirmed the sai d findings.

¶21

The sole contention rai s ed by learned counsel for th e appell a nt is that since the appellant’s house exists on property ‘B’, h e is enti t led to retain exclusive possessi o n thereof and the same shoul d not be partitioned.

¶22

This Court finds no merit in the contention advanced. The p r esent appeal arises out of a p r eliminary decree. At this stage , the C o urt is required only to determi n e the shares of the parties. Th e mode and manner of partition, i n cluding questions relating t o posse s sion, structures, and equities, fall within the domain of th e Court w hile drawing the final decree.

¶23

The Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt in Phool chand v. Gopal Lal , AIR 1967 SC 1470, has held that matters concerning equities an d conve n ience can be appropriately c o nsidered at the stage of fina l decre e . Thus, constructive equities a nd existing possession can b e suitab l y balanced during final decree p roceedings.

¶24

Therefore, the plea of the appellant regarding existenc e of a h o use on property ‘B’ is clearly p r emature. The appellant shall b e at lib e rty to raise such plea befo r e the Court at the stage o f prepa r ation of the final decree, w h ere the executing Court ma y suitab l y take note of occupation, con v enience, and relative equities.

¶25

The shares of the parti e s, as recorded by the Court s below , remain undisputed before t h is Court. The findings are a s under :

¶26

 In pro p erty ‘A’:

¶27

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page N: 2 of 3 Pages

¶29

RSA No. 3209 of 2002

¶30

Plaintiff : 5/16 share

¶31

Defendant No.1 (appellant) : 3/16 share

¶32

Defendant No.2 : 1/2 share

¶33

 In pro p erty ‘B’:  Plaintiff : 1/2 share  Defendant No.1 (appellant) : 1/2 share 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able t o point o ut any perversity, misreading , or non-reading of evidence i n the concurrent findings of fact render e d by both the Courts below.

¶34

In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, th e High C ourt may interfere only wher e a substantial question of la w arises. Concurrent findings of fact, b a sed on proper appreciation o f evide n ce, cannot be disturbed unless s hown to be perverse.

¶35

In the present case, no s u bstantial question of law arise s for d e termination. The appeal is f o unded solely upon a factua l assert i on relating to existence of a h o use, which is irrelevant for th e purpo s es of adjudication at the stage o f preliminary decree.

¶36

In view of the above d iscussion, this Court finds n o illegality, perversity, or infirmity in t he concurrent judgments an d decre e s passed by the Courts below. The findings are well-reasone d and based upon correct appreciati o n of evidence. Consequently , findin g no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal, the sam e stand s dismissed.

¶37

Pending application(s), if a ny, shall stand disposed of.

¶38

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 14.11.2025 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶39

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

Page N: 3 of 3 Pages

(O&M) Ajit Singh v. Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Ajit Singh v. Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljinder Pal Singh and Anr. Vs Vikram Singh through His Lr

Mohan Lal Vs Vinod Kumar

Gina Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

Khalil and Others Vs Khurshid Ahmed and Others

Ramesh Khatri Vs Darshan

Charan Singh (Since Deceased) through Hus Lrs Rajinder Kaur and Others Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others