RSA No.1429 of 2008 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA No.1429 of 2008 Date of decision: 09.05.2008. Rani and another ... Appellants Versus Hans Raj and others ... Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,for the appellants. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Walaiti Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 purchased suit house over three marla of land comprising khasra No.76/24/1/1/2 of the size of 95 ft. 6 inches X 95 ft. situated on the Hospital Road, Sardulgarh, vide sale deed dated 11.7.1972. Walaiti Ram died intestate and the property devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in equal shares. Defendant No.1 sold the land measuring 9 ft. 9 inches X 19 ft. out of the aforesaid property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 18.03.2004. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of partition of the suit house claiming 8/9th share in the property and also challenged the sale deed dated 18.03.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 measuring 9 ft. 6 inches X 19 ft. alleging that defendant No.1 has sold more than his 1/9th share in RSA No.1429 of 2008 :2: the suit property. It was also alleged that defendant No.1 had no right to sell the specific portion of the suit property without partition. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 contested the suit and stated that the suit property is situated at Mansa-Sirsa Road, Sardulgarh, whereas the property of the plaintiffs is situated at Hospital Road, Sardulgarh. They further claimed that they are owners of the shops situated at Mansa-Sirsa Road. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of 8/9 share of the suit house by way of partition as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action or locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of Court fee? OPD 4. Relief. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the property sold by defendant No.1 is situated on Mansa-Sirsa Road and since the property claimed by the plaintiffs is situated at Hospital Road,Sardulgarh, the suit came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree RSA No.1429 of 2008 :3: dated 17.08.2007. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District judge, Mansa, who has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit vide his impugned judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008. It is against the aforesaid judgment and decree that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed the present appeal. It has been contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Lower Appellate Court has wrongly returned the findings in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the identity of suit property. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs having failed to establish that the property sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is the same property, they were not entitled to the relief claimed. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length. It is not in dispute that Walaiti Ram, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 purchased three marlas of land vide sale deed dated 11.07.1972. It is also admitted case of the parties that Walaiti Ram died intestate and his widow i.e. Mother of plaintiff and defendant No.1, Kulwanti also died and thus, the property i.e. three marlas of house and land underneath devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in equal shares. It is also admitted case of the parties that defendant No.1 sold the suit land vide sale deed dated 18.03.2004 to defendant Nos.2 and 3. The only dispute raised in the suit was regarding the location of the property. RSA No.1429 of 2008 :4: The plaintiffs stated that the suit property is situated on Hospital Road, Sardulgarh, whereas the defendants stated that the property purchased by them is situated at Mansa-Sirsa Road, Sardulgarh. It is, however, no body's case that Walaiti Ram had any other property except three marlas of land or the property sold by defendant No.1 is not the property out of the estate of Walaiti Ram. The plaintiffs claim regarding 8/9th share in the estate of Walaiti Ram, is also not in dispute. Defendant No.1 has only 1/9th share is also not in dispute. Under these circumstances, merely because a dispute is sought to be raised regarding the exact location of the property, the plaintiffs could not be non-suited. The learned trial Court committed a grave error in dismissing the suit for partition of the property in dispute by majority share holders only on account of small mis-description of location of the property. The learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly concluded that the property having been inherited from Walaiti Ram and the shares having not been disputed, the plaintiffs have a right to seek partition. The judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court is based upon true and correct appreciation of the evidence and cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law arises. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order to costs. 09.05.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO