RSA No. 3545 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3545 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.10.2011 Chanchal Singh … Appellant Versus Harjinder Singh and others … Respondents Present: Mr. K.S.Bhullar, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant seeking declaration that order dated 11.7.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector I Grade, Ajnala, rejecting the mutation ignoring Civil Court decree dated 9.4.1987 passed by the Sub Judge I Class, Ajnala, is illegal, null and void and therefore, liable to be set aside, with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the revenue Authorities to implement the afore-said decree dated 9.4.1987. The case as set up by the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he along with defendants 4 and 5 had earlier filed suit for declaration against the remaining defendants and against Chanan Singh son of Ujagar Singh and Bela Singh son of Mangal Singh for declaration that he and defendant No.6 in the said suit were co-sharers to the extent of 1/4th share and Bela Singh, defendant, was co-owner to the extent of 1/4th share and defendants No.4 and 5 in the said suit were co-sharers to the extent of ½ share and defendants 1 and 2 had got no right, title or interest in the land measuring 38 kanals 4 marlas which was the subject matter of that suit with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from land measuring 19 kanals 7 marlas. That suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration sought for therein. It was pleaded RSA No. 3545 of 2010 2 before the trial Court that the defendants had not filed any appeal against the said judgment and decree and therefore, the same attained finality. On the basis of said judgment and decree, the plaintiff moved an application for sanctioning of mutation in his favour to which defendants 1 and 2 filed objections. The matter of mutation came up for consideration before the Assistant Collector I Grade, Ajnala, who rejected the same on 11.7.2001. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the Revenue Courts were bound by the decree of the Civil Court dated 11.7.2001 and could not refuse to sanction mutation. Upon notice, defendants No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the suit by filing their written statement wherein they denied that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 are co-owners in the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share while Bela Singh was admitted to be owner to the extent of 1/4th share whereas Chanan Singh and Shavinder Singh to the extent of ½ share in the property. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had inherited the property from Teja Singh, his father, who was owner to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit property. It was pleaded in the written statement that the defendants had bought shares of all the co-sharers except that of the plaintiff and his sisters Jamna and Beero. It was further pleaded that the suit land had already been partitioned and 5 kanals and 7 marlas of land bearing khasra No. 31//18/2/2 had been allotted to the plaintiff and thus, no declaration at this stage could be granted. Evidence was led before the trial Court on the basis of issues struck and the trial Court held that after the decree passed by the then Sub Judge I Class, Ajnala, dated 9.4.1987, the parties had sold their shares to other defendants and therefore, the shares of the parties to that suit were changed and modified and the parties had also partitioned the land by metes and bounds. The partition proceedings were affirmed upto the High Court in RSA No. 1645 of 1990. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff had not impleaded his sisters as parties to the earlier suit and on the basis of these findings, the trial Court held that the Assistant Collector I Grade did not commit any mistake in refusing to sanction mutation in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of decree dated 9.4.1987. Plaintiff-appellant went up in appeal which was dismissed on 19.4.2010 by the first appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal by him. RSA No. 3545 of 2010 3 It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have committed an error in holding that there was a delay in filing of the application for sanctioning of mutation on the basis of decree dated 9.4.1987 and that mutation could not be sanctioned because the partition had already taken place. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that since the plaintiff had purchased share of his sisters, therefore, non-joining of sisters as parties in the earlier suit cannot be taken as a ground for non-suiting the plaintiff in the present case. Counsel further contended that the sale of shares by some co-sharers in joint khata cannot create any impediment in sanctioning of mutation on the basis of Civil Court decree having been passed in favour of the plaintiff because those changes in the share had taken place after passing of the decree. After hearing the counsel for the appellant and going through the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that after passing of decree dated 9.4;1987, suit for partition came to be filed and partition of the land in dispute had taken place which was done by metes and bounds by the competent revenue Authorities. Sanad Taqsim had already been prepared determining the shares of the parties and thus, the partition proceedings had attained finality upto this Court in RSA No. 1645 of 1990. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that decree dated 9.4.1987 was never produced before any revenue Authorities by the plaintiff seeking sanctioning of mutation in his favour on the basis of said decree. Therefore, the Assistant Collector I grade rightly rejected the mutation and secondly, it was held that once partition proceedings had taken place and the determination of share was upheld right upto this Court, no effect to decree dated 9.4.1987 could be given for sanctioning of mutation. It is also not in dispute that in the earlier suit, the plaintiff had not impleaded Jamna and Beera, his sisters, as parties. In joint khata, shares of the parties could not be determined on the basis of a decree to which are not a party. It is well settled law that all co-sharers ought to have been impleaded and only then the said judgment and decree would be binding and effective between the parties. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that at this stage, the Revenue Authorities have rightly refused to interfere because shares in the property had been sold and the RSA No. 3545 of 2010 4 purchased by various persons who were not party to the earlier suit. Counsel for the appellant though argued at length but could not point out as to how these findings are perverse or illegal. Otherwise also, the arguments raised before this Court are based upon concurrent findings and no question of law, muchless substantial, arises which requires consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, there being no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. October 13, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE