IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.150 of 2009 Judgment reserved on: 8.9.2009 Date of decision: 27.10.2009 Partap Chand and Ors. …..Appellants Versus Ganesh Dutt & Ors. …. Respondents. _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been filed against judgment, decree dated 20.10.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No.50-D/XIII/2007, affirming, judgment, decree dated 7.5.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) II, Dharamshala in case CMA No.41/03. 2. Ganesh Dutt respondent No.1 had filed case No.RBT CS No.155 of 2000 for partition against Smt. Kaushlya Devi, Smt. Bimla Devi, Smt. Ishwari Devi, Lalita Devi, Smt. Kamla Devi (predecessor of respondents No.4 to 9) Partap Chand, Manju, Sanjay and Ajay. The learned Sub Judge Ist Class(II), Dharamshala had passed a preliminary decree and declared the shares of the parties. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… The defendants were restrained from occupying the best portion of the suit land till partition by raising construction. 3. Ganesh Dutt had filed an application for final decree of partition of his 1/8th share as held by the Court on 19.3.2001. He had prayed for partition of the suit land on the spot by appointing Local commissioner. The application for final decree was contested by defendants No.2,3 and 6, now appellants. The learned Civil Judge on 7.5.2007 had held that respondent No.1 is entitled to possession of khasra No.1288/1 as shown in the Aks Sazra Latha Ex. AW1/C. It was ordered that report of the Local Commissioner shall form part of the decree. The decision dated 7.5.2007 was assailed by appellants before learned District Judge, who dismissed their appeal on 20.10.2008. They have now come in second appeal. 4. The record was called and perused. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Courts below have not appreciated the pleadings of the parties and evidence led by them as also the law applicable. The impugned judgments are vitiated and without jurisdiction in view of Sections 4,5,(a),(b) and 171 (xvii) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. More valuable land has been given to respondent No.1. The courts below have ignored the principle of law that place of worship cannot be partitioned. 5. The suit for partition filed by respondent No.1 was decreed by trial Court on 19.3.2001. The preliminary decree passed by trial court on 19.3.2001 had attained finality. At the time of preparation of the final decree, the settled position by way of preliminary decree cannot be unsettled. The appellants have taken …3… vague grounds in the appeal that pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties have not been properly appreciated without specifying what part of the pleadings and evidence having bearing on the merits of the case has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. This despite the fact that in second appeal appreciation of evidence is not possible. It is not the case of the appellants that impugned judgment is perverse or material evidence having bearing on the merits of the case has been ignored by the courts below. 6. The objection of appellants that impugned judgment, decree have vitiated in view of Sections 4,5,(a),(b) and 171 (xvii) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act is noticed only to be rejected. This contention is not available to the appellants at the time of preparation of the final decree. Similarly, objection that place of worship cannot be partitioned is not available to the appellants in view of the fact that in the reply filed by appellants to the application for preparing final decree, no such objection has been taken. There is no whisper in the reply that the preliminary decree passed by the trial court is vitiated due to any provision of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act or that a specific portion of the property cannot be partitioned as the same is a place of worship. The Local Commissioner was appointed by the trial court. The report of the Local Commissioner has been assailed in the appeal on the grounds that place of worship cannot be partitioned and also that more valuable land abutting the road has been allotted to respondent No.1. It is common knowledge that in partition with mathematical precision allotment cannot be made. The appellants have not stated …4… what type of land has been allotted to them. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the appeal, accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge October 27, 2009 (sks) …5… IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 227 of 2001. Judgment reserved on :10.7.2009 Date of decision: 18.8.2009 Smt. Madhu Verma ….Appellant Vs. H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority ……Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate Kuldip Singh, Judge For judgment see judgment of today rendered in RSA No.548 of 2000 titled H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority vs. Smt. Madhu Verma. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge August 18, 2009 (sks)