Dismissed¶19

Prem Chand and Ors. v. Mool Chand

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2025RSA/435/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; RSA-435-1999 (O&M); Prem Chand and Others v. Mool Chand; Deepak Gupta, J.; decided 12.12.2025; partition suit; joint property; plea of prior partition in 1972; possession of portion under tin shed not proof of partition; concurrent findings of fact not interfered with; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Even if the defendants were in possession of a specific portion of the property by putting a tin shed, such possession by putting a tin shed in itself does not prove partition. ¶17

Prem Chand and Ors. Vs Mool Chand — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

********

¶3

208

¶4

RSA-435-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision:12.12.2025

¶5

Prem Chand and Others …..Appellants Vs. Mool Chand .….Respondent

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present:Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

¶8

Mr. Brijesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate for Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

¶9

¶10

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Defendants of the case are against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Suit was filed by the sole plain(ff Mool Chand seeking par((on of the suit property, contending that he had ½ share therein; whereas the remaining ½ share belonged to the defendants. As per the stand taken by the defendants, though jointness of the property was admi,ed but it was claimed that par((on had earlier taken place in 1972.

¶12

Both the Courts below, based upon the pleadings and evidence, found that suit property was s(ll joint as defendants had failed to prove any prior par((on in 1972.

¶13

The aforesaid findings are assailed on the ground that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record.

¶14

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.13 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

RSA-435-1999 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

However learned counsel for the appellants has failed to convince this Court as to what material evidence has not been taken into considera(on by the Courts below. Learned counsel submits that the defendants were in possession of a por(on of the property by pu4ng a (n shed. However even if the said conten(on is found to be correct, the possession of a specific por(on by pu4ng a (n shed in itself does not prove the par((on.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper apprecia(on of evidence on record.

¶19

No ground to interfere. Dismissed.

¶20

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE December 12, 2025 Nee(ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶21

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.13 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Prem Chand and Ors. v. Mool Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand and Ors. v. Mool Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarnail Singh Vs Gurdip Singh

Surja Ram Vs Prithvi Raj

Nachiya Devi and Ors. Vs Amarnath and Ors.

Moksh Lata Vs Manohar Lal Sood and Another

State Bank of India Vs Harnand

Baljit Singh Vs Ramesh Singh and Others