R.S.A.No.5296 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.5296 of 2003 Date of Decision : 03.07.2009 Haripal and Another ...Appellants Versus Swarni and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.S.Attwal, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1 and 3, sons of Garibu are in second appeal against the decree passed in a suit for separate possession filed by Swarni wife of Karma and Paramjit son of Karma. One Bhagwan Dass was the owner of the suit property. He had four sons namely Karma, Garibu, Joginder and Dalipa. Wife and son of pre-deceased son Karma have filed the present suit for separate possession impleading other sons of Karma as defendant Nos.7 and 8. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are sons of Garibu. Defendant No.5 Joginder Singh and defendant No.6 Dalipa are the sons of Bhagwan Dass. The learned trial Court in para 10 has given a finding that plaintiff alongwith defendant Nos.7 and 8 are the owners to the extent of 1/4th share of the suit land. The plea of the defendants that the suit property was exclusive property of Garibu has been negated. In view of the said fact, all the four sons of Bhagwan Dass or their legal heirs will R.S.A.No.5296 of 2003 2 get 1/4th share in the estate of Bhagwan Dass. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that while granting preliminary decree, the share of the other sons of Bhagwan Dass have not been specified, therefore, the preliminary decree passed is not in accordance with Order 20 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any merit in the argument raised. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that Bhagwan Dass was the last owner of the suit property and that he had four sons. In view of the said fact, his four sons or their legal heirs will get 1/4th share each. Even the judgments of the Courts are to this effect. Therefore, the present appeal is disposed of, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties to clarify, if any, is required that the preliminary decree passed by the Courts below is to the effect that the plaintiff/defendant Nos.7 and 8 are entitled to 1/4th share, whereas other three sons or their legal heirs are entitled to 1/4th share each. With the said observation, the appeal stands disposed of. 03.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE