R.S.A.No. 2834 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2834 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.1.2011 Hoshiar Singh ......Appellant Versus Rattanjit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Avinash Maudala, Advocate for Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession and the case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Dharam Singh as well as Pritam kaur had got the property on lease for 99 years vide lease deed dated 11.9.1968 from Mahant Prag Dass @ Harchand Dass, Chela Sant Ram. Pritam kaur, mother of the parties, died on 5.7.1987. After her death, the parties as well as other legal representatives of Pritam R.S.A.No. 2834 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Kaur inherited her half share. In a family settlement, half share of Pritam Kaur in the suit property came to the share of plaintiff and remaining half share of Dharam Singh came to the share of the defendant. Thus, both the parties had half share each in the suit property. On 14.4.1998, defendant took forcible possession of the suit property. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant in his written statement averred that earlier a lease deed was executed on 6.9.1968. The plaintiff and Dharam Singh had relinquished their rights in the lease deed. No family settlement had taken place as alleged by the plaintiff. Will dated 28.10.1991 was a forged and a fabricated document and Dharam Singh had not executed any Will as he had no connection with the shop in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the shop in dispute to the extent of ½ share on the basis of the private partition? OPP. 2. Whether Dharam Singh executed a legal and valid will No.217 of 28.10.1998, if so its effect OPP 3. Whether suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC? OPD 4.Whether suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC ? OPD 5. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD R.S.A.No. 2834 of 2007 (O&M) 3 6. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD 9. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession by way of partition as claimed? OPP 10.Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal. Defendant filed his cross-objections. Additional District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2007 allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff to the extent that he was entitled to a decree for joint possession of the shop in dispute alongwith his other brothers and sisters, whereas, the cross-objections filed by the defendant were dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the controversy in the present case revolves around memorandum Ex.P-1 and lease deed Ex.D-3. Admittedly, a lease deed was executed in favour of Dharam Singh and his wife by Prag Dass @ Harchand Dass on R.S.A.No. 2834 of 2007 (O&M) 4 11.9.1968 to use the property for 99 years. As per the plaintiff half portion of the suit property had been given to him, after the death of Pritam Kaur. Pritam Kaur, admittedly, died on 5.7.1987. Learned Additional District Judge has noticed that Ex.P-1 was not a valid partition as the same had not been signed by defendant and other co-sharers. Hence, the said document was rightly rejected by the Courts below. The defendant, on the other hand, had placed reliance on lease deed Ex.D-3 executed by Prag Dass @ Harchand Dass in respect of the suit property. However, a perusal of the said lease deed (shown during the course of arguments) reveals that it was not executed in favour of the defendant but it was executed in favour of Dharam Singh. In these circumstances, the defendant could not get any benefit from lease deed Ex.D-3. Hence, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-3 did not help the plaintiff and defendant respectively. The plaintiff was, thus, liable to be held in joint possession of the shop in dispute along with other legal representatives of Pritam Kaur and Dharam Singh. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 31, 2011 anita R.S.A.No. 2834 of 2007 (O&M) 5