405 Q n 1m Reclular Second Appeal Noe 4427 of 2009 lO8M1e IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 March 04 1 lv41 1 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4427 of 200SlOSM10 C2 0 Hargin Singh Kang through his general attorney Gurpreet 0 Singh Appellant C5 VERSUS I Z BaljinderKaur Kang and others Respondents 2 Lr I CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL t3 Z 1 Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment 2 rlo 2a To be referred to the Reporters or not7 3Nhether the judgmentshould be reported in the Digest 7 7 4 Z tl Presentl MrKunal Dawar Advocate for the appellant Mr Saurabh Kaushik Advocate for the caveatorslrespondents MOHINDER PA12 Je Defendantappellant IS in second appeal aggeved againstthe judginentsand decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby a preliminarydecree for separate possession by way of partition of the disputed house wherein plalntiff Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 16: 53 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 406 0 1 2 Reqular Second AoDeal Noe 4427 of 2009 lOSMle Nos 1 to 4 have Vz share in equalshares plaintif No5 has V4 share and the is also having V share has been passed in favour of the plaintiff 1 As per case of the plaintiffsrespondentsthey laintiff and defendantappellant are the cosharers of the house in 0 0 dispute Plaintiffs Nos l to 4 have Vz share while plaintiff No5 I C5 and defendantappellanthave V share each in this house When I the defendantappellantdeclined the request of the plaintiffs Z respondentsto separate their share in the house in dispute the instant suit Was filed by the plaintiffespondents In the written statement filed by the I he pleaded that he had constructed the house in dispute for the Z purposeof Iiis residence that he was residingin the said house for Ol the Iast 20 years that he was exclusive owner in possessionof the 7 same and that as the plaintiffsespondents had no share in Z the house in dispute they were not entitled to seek separate Qm possessionof the house by way of partition The trial Court after framing issues on the pleadingsof the parties recording their evidence and hearing their Iearned counsel passedthe preliminarydecree for separate possession by way of pa rtition of the disputed house wherein plaintiff respondents Nos 1 to 4 were held to have Vz share in equal shares plaintifespondent No5 was heldto have V4 share and the defendantappellant was also held to have share vide judgmentand decree dated 2932007 The defendantappellant Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 16: 53 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 407 1 0 1 a3 Reqular Second Appeal No 4427 of 2009 lOaMle went in appealagainst the judgmentand decree passed by the trial C0ourt which was dismissed by the Iower appellateCourt vide judgmentand decree dated 332009 On 18112010 this Court passedthe followingorderl 11 Admittedly the appellant IS a Non 0 0 Resident Indian Let a sum of Rs l Iac be I C5 deposited as securityby the appellant for I the costs of this appealas provided u nder Z Order 41 Rule 10 CPC List on 422011 Il Lr I The defendantappellantfailed to complywith the above C3 Z order passed by this Court on 18112010 and on 422011the r followingorder was passedby this Courtl Z Il It has been broughtto my notice that order passed by this Court Orl November 18 2010 has not been complied with The appellant is given one Iast opportunity to comply with the same within 15 days from the date of receiptof copy of this order Adjournedto 132011 Il The defendantappellant did not comply with the above order dated 42201 l passed by this Court and this appeal Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 16: 53 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 408 d 0 1 m4e Reqular Second Appeal No1427 of 2009 lO8M1e deserves dismissal on that groundalone However on rnerits as well this appeal does not succeed PlaintifesPondent Noel Baljinder Kaur Kang IS the wife of Iate Kamaljit Singh son of KuldipSingh son of Chanchal Singh Aneetpal Kaur Kang and 1 Kaur Kang olaintiffsespondentsNos 2 and 31 are the d8ughters and Surinderpal Charlene Kang olaintif 0 0 respondentNoA IS the minor daughter of Baljinder Kaur Kang I PlaintiffrespondentNo 5 RupinderSinghKang is the brother of C5 defend8ntopellant HargianSingh Kang Late KamaljitSingh Z husband of plaintifespondent No l and father of plaintiHse respondentsNos 2 to 4 was the nephew orothers sonl of C Hargian Singh and plaintifespondent No5 I RupinderSinghKang Electric connection in the house in disputeIS Z installed in the name of plaintifrespondent No5 GurpreetSingh r Gener81Attorney of the appeared in the witnessbox as DWl and stated that the plaintirespondents W2 Z have no concern with the disputedhouse He further stated that the Om la nt had constructed the saidhouse about 20 eIuSIVC years ago and he defendantappellantl was in exclusion possessionthereof However Gurpreet Singh DW ll could not produce any document regardingownership of the disputedhouse by the defendantopellant He further admitted that the disputed house was situated within the Lal Lakeer of the village and that the same had not been purchased by defendantappellant Hargian SinghKang Jamabandi for the year 200102 Exhibit P5I IS ill the name of Kirpal Singh son of Chanchal Singh 119 share Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 16: 53 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 409 0 1 e5 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4427 of 2009 l08M10 Kamalit Singhson of KuldipSingh son of Chanchal Singh119share KirpalSingh had died As mentioned above plaintifespondent No5 and the defendantappellantare the sons of KirpalSingh Their mother was Mohinder Kaur Previously said Mohinder Kaur was married to KuIdip Singh son of Chanchal Singh and out of their wedeIock KamaljitSingh husband of plaintifespondent No l and 0 0 father of plaintiffsrespondentsNos 2 to 4 was born After the I C5 deatM of KuldipSingh Mohinder Kaur had contracted second I marriagewith KirpalSingh father of No5 and Z the defendantappellant After the death of Kamaljit Singh plaintiffsrespondentsNos 1 to 4 are entitled to the share of KamaljitSingh in the said house The disputedhouse was jointly I owned by said KuldipSingh and KirpalSingh to the extent of Vz L0 Z shar each Vz share of KuldipSinghwas inherited by his son C10 KamaljitSingh On the death of KamaljitSingh it devolved upon W7 Nos 1 to 4 However Vz share of Kirpal Z Singhdevolved upon plaintifespondent No 5 and the defendant appellantin equalshares In this way plaintiffespondents Nos l to 4 have Vz share in equal shares and plaintiffrespondentNo5 and the defendantwappellanthave vz share each in the disputed house The abovementioned relationship between the parties to the suit is admitted The disputedhouse was ancestral which was by ChanchalSingh From ChanchaI Singhit came to his sons Kirpa1 Singh a nd Kuldi p Singha nd from Ki rpa1 Singh and Ku Idip Si ng h to their sons ie Kamaljit Singh predcessornnterest of plaintiffespondents Nos l to 4 Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 16: 53 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e 410 0 1 40 Reqular Second Apoeal Noe 4427 of 2009 lOSMI No5 and the defendantopellant Exhibits P2 to PA are the documents relating to the electric connection in respectof the house in dispute These documents show that electric connection in the said house IS Ill the name of No 5 As mentioned above Jamabandi for the year 20012002 Exhibit P51 aiso shows relationshipof KirpalSingh son of 0 0 Chancha1 Singh and Kama Ijit Si ngh son of Kuldip Singh son of I C5 Chanchal Singh On the other hand failed to I prove hisexclusive possessionover the house in dispute by way of Z producingany document on record The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findingsof fact It could not be pointedout by the Iearned counsel for the defendantappellant that 5uch findings are based on misreadingof evidence orthat 0 Z material evidence has not been taken into consideration Under the circumstances I do not find any patent W2 illegalityor irregularityin the findingsrecorded by both the Courts Z below which may give rise to any substantial question of Iaw in the tl present appeai Resultantly this appeal IS herebydismissed being without any merit PALI March 0 1 2011 JUDGE 1 ak J Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 16: 53 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document