RSA No.1298 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1298 of 2005 Date of Decision: 10.8.2009 Pushpa Chopra ......Appellant Versus Amrit Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri J.S. Brar, Advocate and Shri H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri Vijay Lath, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby her suit for possession by way of partition, has been dismissed. Vide sale deed dated 23.7.1969, the plaintiff, Amrit Lal- defendant No.1 and Joginder Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos.2 and 3, purchased the land measuring 9 kanals 2 marlas. There is no dispute in respect of the entire remaining land except the land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas. Both the Courts have recorded finding that there was a partition deed dated 19.2.1971 whereby the entire land was partitioned and the land RSA No.1298 of 2005 (2) measuring 15 marlas fell to the share of the plaintiff, 18 marlas to the share of Joginder Singh and 1 kanal 1 marla to the share of defendant No.1. The mutations were also sanctioned in the name of respective share holders consequent to the aforesaid partition. It was further found that 10 marlas of land comprising in Khasra No. 47//10/4 (0-10) is still joint of the parties in which one Sulakhan Kaur is also co-sharer. It has been found that since all the co-sharers are not parties in respect of 10 marlas of land, therefore, the present suit is not maintainable and the same was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that since there is no dispute regarding share of Sulakhan Kaur and all other co- sharers are parties in the present suit, the decree for partition can be passed in the present suit itself. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument. In a suit for partition, all the co-sharers are required to be impleaded as party. In respect of the remaining portion of land purchased by the parties on 23.7.1969, the issue stands settled but in respect of 10 marlas of land, apart from the parties to the suit, one Sulakhan Kaur is also a co-owner. Thus, in the absence of such co-owner, the decree for partition cannot be granted in the present suit. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10.8.2009 ds