R.S.A.No. 2137 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2137 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.2.2011 Dayal Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Gurbachan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 5. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that mutation No.973 dated 11.3.1999 was illegal, null and void. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that Surinderjit Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Sampuran Kaur and Mulkha Singh were joint owners of the suit land measuring 223 kanals 18 marlas. Mulkha Singh had 1/3rd share in the suit property. Plaintiff Dayal R.S.A.No. 2137 of 2009 2 Singh had purchased the suit property from Mulkha Singh and was delivered vacant possession of the suit land. Since then plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit property. The partition proceedings were illegal as no compromise had ever been effected between the parties. Mutation sanctioned on the basis of the partition order dated 26.7.1986 was also null and void. Defendants No.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 were proceeded ex parte as they failed to appeal despite served. Defendant No.4, in his written statement, averred that the suit property had been partitioned vide order dated 27.7.1986 by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurdaspur. Mutation was sanctioned on 11.3.1999 in favour of the parties to the partition proceedings. Defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether mutation No.973 dated 11.3.1999 and the partition order dated 25.7.1986 are null and void? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata ? OPD 5. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2003. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated R.S.A.No. 2137 of 2009 3 18.11.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case the suit land was partitioned vide order dated 25.7.1986 and thereafter, the impugned mutation was sanctioned. Since the mutation had been sanctioned in pursuance of the order passed in the partition proceedings, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to comment upon the partition proceedings. The partition proceedings were final and had not been challenged. The land, which had fallen to the share of Sampuran Kaur, during the partition proceedings, had been sold by her to defendant No.5. Plaintiffs had purchased the share of Mulkha Singh and the said vendor had participated in the partition proceedings. The civil suit was not maintainable. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 14, 2011 anita