RSA No. 2110 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2110 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.02.2011. Raj Kumar and another .......Appellants Vs. Jagan Nath ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.N.Saini, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff Jagan Nath had filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition to the extent of 1/3rd share in house/shop in dispute. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the suit property had been purchased by his father in the names of plaintiff and defendants in the year 1968 out of joint funds of the family. Plaintiff was entitled to get 1/3rd share out of the suit property by way of partition. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Sunder Lal, father of the parties, in a family settlement had partitioned the entire joint family property. The plaintiff was given a separate house for residential purpose which was RSA No. 2110 of 2010 (O&M) -2- purchased out of the joint funds by the father of the parties in the name of the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff had no share in the property in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is co-sharer to the extent of 1/3 share in the suit property as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession by way of partition as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether present suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and preliminary decree of separate possession by way of partition was passed in favour of plaintiff to the extent of 1/3rd share out of the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, as per the sale deed Ex.P-2, the suit property had been purchased by the parties. The case of the RSA No. 2110 of 2010 (O&M) -3- defendants was that in a family settlement, another house had been purchased in the name of the plaintiff by their father and the suit property had come to their share. However, the defendants had failed to establish this plea by producing on record the sale deed vide which Sunder Lal had purchased house in the name of the plaintiff. Since the property in dispute is jointly owned by the parties, the plaintiff was entitled to get his share partitioned out of the suit land. The courts below had, thus, rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 01, 2011 Gurpreet