R.S.A.No. 4210 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 2.2.2011 R.S.A.No. 4210 of 2009 (O&M) Rajni Pujara and another ......Appellants Versus K.K.Pujara and another .......Respondents R.S.A.No. 4211 of 2009 (O&M) Rajni Pujara and another ......Appellants Versus K.K.Pujara and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Veneet Saini, Advocate for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Prahlad Bhagat Vasudeva, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** R.S.A.No. 4210 of 2009 (O&M) 2 SABINA, J. Vide this judgment, RSA Nos.4210 of 2009 and 4211 of 2009 will be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same suit. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed a suit for possession by partition of house in question. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff and Ram Saran Pujara were real brothers. The property in question was owned by their father, who died in the year 1991. The house was constructed by the father of the plaintiff in the year 1981-82 with the assistance of the plaintiff. Defendant Ram Saran Purjara was not residing at Panchkula. During his life time, Lal chand Pujara had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Ram Saran Pujara. As per the said Will, both the plaintiff and Ram Saran Pujara had become owner of the suit property in equal shares. Hence, the suit for partition. Defendant Ram Saran Pujara was represented by his legal representatives, who, in their written statement averred that the house in question was constructed in the year 1981-82 by the father of the parties. It was denied that the house had been constructed with the assistance of the plaintiff. It was admitted that the father of the plaintiff and defendant Ram Saran Pujara had died in the year 1991. The execution of the Will by the father of the plaintiff and Ram Saran Pujara in their favour was also admitted. R.S.A.No. 4210 of 2009 (O&M) 3 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the house in question was constructed by the father of the parties to the suit with the financial assistance given by the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for in view of the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4.. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing true and material facts from the knowledge of the court ? OPD 5. Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.8.2008 declined the relief of partition claimed by the plaintiff . However, the defendant was restrained from creating a third party interest in the suit property and also from changing its nature in any manner without the consent of other co-sharers. Defendant was also restrained from interfering in the peaceful enjoyment of the suit property by either of the co-sharers including the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff as well as the defendants (legal representatives of defendant Ram Saran Pujara) preferred appeals. Vide judgment and decree dated 5.5.2009, District Judge, Panchkula allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. It was ordered that a preliminary decree for partition be passed. Hence, the present two appeals by the defendants. R.S.A.No. 4210 of 2009 (O&M) 4 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeals are devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the suit property was jointly owned by the plaintiff and Ram Saran Pujara on the basis of the Will executed by their father in their favour. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in these regular second appeals, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 02, 2011 anita