RSA No. 1692 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1692 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: March 02,2010 Sukhdev Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Mehar Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. On 18.02.2010 the following order was passed:- “This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for possession by way of partition. The appellants had filed a suit claiming that they were owners to the extent of 1/3rd share in abadi area measuring 15 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.112, 122 and 194. Both the Courts found that as regards Khasra No.112 and 122, the appellants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. Counsel for the appellants has fairly conceded this fact. However, the dispute is with regard to Khasra No.194. RSA No. 1692 of 2007(O&M) 2 Counsel for the appellants has argued that ever since 1961-62, the appellants and their predecessor-in-interest have been shown in possession of Khasra No.194 and are co-owners to the extent of 1/3rd share. Even in their written statement, the respondents never claimed any interest in Khasra No.194. He has further argued that the suit of the appellants qua their share of 3 biswas in Khasra No.194 could not have been rejected. I put it to counsel for the respondents if the respondents would be willing to compromise this matter by paying some amount to the appellants or otherwise compensating them from any other joint lands which may be existing between the parties, he prays for a short adjournment. Adjourned to 2.3.2010.” Today learned counsel for the respondents states that the appellants are not shown to have any right, title or interest even in Khasra No. 194. Thus there is no question of a compromise. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that khasra No.194 independently came to the share of the appellants during consolidation in 1961 and that this was duly reflected in Jamabandi for the year 1960-61(Ex.D3). The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the findings contained in the impugned judgments are perverse as they have ignored the jamabandi for the year 1985-86 Ex.P1 and 1995-96 Ex.P2 wherein Raunaq Singh has been mentioned as owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in khasra No. 194(0-9)? ii)Whether both the courts below have misread and misconstrued the judgment dated 26.4.1963 Ex.D4, vide which suit for pre-emption was decreed to the extent of 1/3rd share in khasra no. 112 and 122 and not in toto? iii)Whether Partap Singh pre-emptor was competent to alienate 3 biswas out of khasra no. 122 through registered sale deed dated 27.9.1965, especially when pre-emption suit was RSA No. 1692 of 2007(O&M) 3 decreed to the extent of 1/3rd share out of khasra no.122, 112 in his favour? iv)Whether both the courts below have gravely erred by ignoring the material documentary evidence as well as by misreading/misinterpreting documentary evidence available on the file? Learned counsel for the appellants has only argued question No.(i) and has stated that right from Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 (Ex.D3), Raunaq Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, was recorded as owner and thus the suit of the appellant-respondents could not be dismissed with regard to khasra no. 194. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, relied on the finding of the learned courts below wherein they have held that the appellants have not been able to show any title in khasra No.194 also and in the absence thereof merely because the name of Raunaq Singh was reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 his claim cannot be accepted. In my opinion this finding of fact is unexceptionable. Consequently holding the question argued against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 02, 2010 sunita