RSA No. 4856 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4856 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.02.2011. Narender .......Appellant Vs. Ved Parkash and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of partition of the suit land measuring 3 Kanals 3 Marlas. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that plaintiff was a co-sharer in the joint land and the share of plaintiff was to the extent of 1 Kanal 11 Marlas. Defendants wanted to raise construction over the suit land without getting the suit land partitioned. Hence, the suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that they were in exclusive possession of the suit land and plaintiff and proforma defendants had no concern with the same. Defendants had constructed a Mandir besides Dharamshala over the suit land. A Samadhi of father of the defendants and other relatives were existing at the spot. A tubewell had been dug in the suit property. Father of the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit RSA No. 4856 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and the same was dismissed. The suit land had already been partitioned and hence the suit was not maintainable. It was further averred that in the year 2001-02 B.K. Chet Ram and Roop Ram were the owners in Khewat No. 38. Out of this Khewat some land was acquired by the State for construction of railway line. Roop Ram and Chet Ram were, thus, left with only 250 Bighas of land. Chet Ram and Roop Ram had sold specific khasra numbers out of the joint khewat. Defendants had purchased 1 Bigha 18 Biswas of land from Chet Ram vide sale deed dated 2.7.1951, after taking permission from the Deputy Commissioner. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendants. Shiv Lal, father of defendants No. 1 and 2 was the owner of half share in the property. Het Ram, one of the original owner, had partitioned his land and a separate khewat was formed bearing Khewat No. 54. Due to wrong revenue entries, Het Ram was being shown as owner to the extent of 1 Kanal 12 Marlas of land out of land bearing Khasra No. 582. On the basis of said revenue entries, Het Ram had executed a sale deed in favour of the father of plaintiff namely Gopi Ram in September 1967. The said sale deed was illegal, null and void. Defendants also filed the counter claim, wherein it was averred that defendants were in possession of 1 Kanals 15 Marlas of land only and during consolidation some of the land had been wrongly transferred to other co-sharers. Het Ram was wrongly recorded as owner to the extent of ½ share, whereas he had no concern with the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues RSA No. 4856 of 2010 (O&M) -3- were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession by way of partition to the extent of half share in the suit land as mentioned in the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD 9. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed suit for possession by way of RSA No. 4856 of 2010 (O&M) -4- partition. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, have held that the land was being used for religious purposes. A Dharamshala had been constructed on the suit land. There was a well in the suit land which was being used for the purpose of drinking water and Samadhi was also existing in the suit land. The land was being used for post death religious ceremonies. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly held that since the land has been used for religious purposes, the same could not be partitioned. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 17, 2011 Gurpreet