R.S.A No. 3657 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M Nos.10844-47-C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 3657 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : August 21, 2009 Harjeet Kaur, ...... Appellant (s) v. Manjit Kaur and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M.Nos.10844-45-C of 2008 C.Ms are allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.10846-C of 2008 For the reasons stated, C.M is allowed and delay of 25 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M No.10847-C of 2008 and R.S.A No.3657 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for possession of House No.2503, Mohalla Phool Chakkar, Ropar. R.S.A No. 3657 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: The following questions have been proposed :- “ 1) Whether both the Courts below could ignore the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2002 inter se parties whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1 Manjit Kaur had been dismissed and the said judgment and decree had become final between the parties ? 2) Whether the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2002 in a suit filed by respondent No.1 Manjit Kaur operates as a res judicata and, thus, the findings recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the respondents are owners in possession of the property in question, are erroneous and contrary to the findings given in the earlier judgment ? 3) Whether the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and against record, and therefore liable to be set aside ? 4) Whether the plea taken by the respondents in their written statement regarding ownership and possession of 1/3rd share of House No.2503 taken in the present suit filed by the appellant is a res judicata and respondents are estopped from taking such plea again, the findings having been already arrived at in judgment dated 20.2.2002 ?” Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny that having not produced the Will in favour of her vendor, the finding that the appellant cannot be the owner of the entire house cannot be faulted. R.S.A No. 3657 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: However, the learned counsel has argued that in any case the appellant was admittedly owner of 2/3rd share of the house and her entire suit could not be dismissed, as has been found by both the Courts below. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the finding of the Courts below that the suit for possession was not maintainable and the appellant could file a suit for partition. It is also to be noticed that respondent No.2 was not a party in the earlier suit and, thus, in any case the decree dated 20.2.2002 could not be res judicata against him. Consequently, the questions proposed are held against the appellant. Resultantly, this appeal as also the application for stay are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 21, 2009. JUDGE `kk'