R.S.A. No. 2899 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2899 of 2004 Date of decision:6th August, 2009 Vasudev Bhutani ......Appellant Versus Pritam Kaur and others ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 5. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for respondents no. 8 and 9. Rajive Bhalla, J The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 30.09.1999 and 17.01.2004, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad and the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, on the limited point that the courts below have committed an error in allowing partition at the behest of daughters. Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not contest the findings recorded by the courts below that his sisters are share holders to the extent of 1/7th share each, in the suit R.S.A. No. 2899 of 2004 2 property but asserts that the courts below could not have ordered partition, by metes and bounds, at their behest. It is further submitted that as there are more properties involved, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are bad for partial partition. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the property in suit was the personal property of Mukand Lal and upon his demise was inherited, in equal shares by his children, i.e., his sons and daughters. As the property is neither coparcener nor joint Hindu family property, there is no impediment, to the right of a co-owner, whether a son or a daughter to seek and be granted partition. It is further submitted that the argument, with respect to partial partition, is factually incorrect, as the other property is already covered by an earlier judgment and decree dated 30.09.1999. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees, considered the substantial questions of law which are as follows: “1. Whether the appellants are entitled to the rent of the property in dispute? 2. Whether the sisters are also entitled to 1/7th share in the property?” As regards the first question of law, no argument has been addressed and therefore, does not require adjudication. So R.S.A. No. 2899 of 2004 3 far as the second question, while addressing argument, counsel for the appellant has modified the question and asserts that the courts below could not have allowed partition at the behest of daughters of the deceased. The property in dispute was admittedly, the personal property of Mukund Lal which has been inherited by his sons and his daughters as co-owners. In the absence of any plea that the property was coparcenery or joint Hindu family property of parties, the children of Mukund Lal, whether daughter or son are entitled to seek possession by way of partition. The argument that daughters, cannot seek partition is entirely misplaced as the law of inheritance no longer draws any distinction between a son and a daughter. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 6th August, 2009 SKaushik