LPA No. 226 of 2009 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * LPA No. 226 of 2009 Date of decision :December 23, 2009 * * * * * Ranjit Singh and another ............appellants Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals-1) Punjab, Mini Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Punjab, Chandigarh & others ...........respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.S Jammu, Advocate for respondents no 5 & 6. * * * * * HEMANT GUPTA, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on January 12, 2009, whereby partition proceedings were permitted to continue. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there is dispute regarding title and consequently, the partition proceedings cannot be permitted to continue. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that in fact respondents no. 5 & 6 are purchasers from respondents no. 7 & 8 and respondents no. 7 & 8 have filed a suit challenging sale in favour of respondents no. 5 & 6. The appellants are purchasers of specific khasra LPA No. 226 of 2009 :2: numbers from respondents no. 9 to 12. The said sale is disputed by respondents no. 5 & 6 that sale is of a specific khasra no. and therefore, shall not affect qua the rights of the said respondents in the joint land. Though sale in favour of the appellant is subject matter of challenge before the Civil Court but that does not affect the title of the appellant or that of respondents no. 5 & 6. It is well-settled that sale of a specific khasra no. is still a share of joint land. Reference may be made to Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 and Ram Chander vs. Bhim Singh and others, 2008 (3) RCR (civil) 685. In respect of challenge to the purchase by respondents no. 5 & 6, suffice it to say that either respondents no. 5 & 6 will get possession of the property or respondents no. 7 & 8 in the event of success of the suit. Such pendency of the suit does not affect the share of the parties as share of the original owners is beyond dispute. In view of the said fact, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court which may warrant interference of this Court. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE December 23, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE