IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.699 of 2009 Date of decision : August 10, 2010 Sant Ram …Petitioner. Versus Dilu Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Surinder Verma & Ms Vidushi Sharma, Advocates, for respondents No.1 to 8. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 11th November, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.44 of 2009, whereby he set aside the order dated 18th July, 2009 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.25 of 2009 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Sundernagar, in Civil Suit titled as Sant Ram versus Dilu and others. 2. The undisputed facts are that Sidhu and Ghopla were two brothers, who were owners of the suit land. Ghopla migrated from Mandi and settled down near Tattapani. He died more than 70 years back. After his death, his brother Sidhu sold a portion of the suit land, which was jointly owned Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… by the two brothers, to Bhuru, on the ground that Ghopla had died issueless and, therefore, he was his sole heir. Thereafter, Duni Chand and his then minor brother Dilu filed a suit, which was decided by the Sub Divisional Officer, Suket at Sundernagar, exercising the powers of the Civil Court. It was held that Duni Chand and Dilu were the legitimate sons of Ghopla and entitled to inherit his property. As regards the oral sale made in favour of Bhuru, the learned Judge held that no evidence had been led and, therefore, it was ordered that such sale would not affect the rights of Duni Chand and Dilu. The plaintiff claimed title under Bhuru. His claim is that half of the land sold by Sidhu to Bhuru now has come to his share and with regard to the remaining land he says that his predecessor Bhuru was a tenant under Sidhu and Ghopla and these tenancy rights have ripened into ownership. 3. I have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. On going through the record, prima facie at this stage, without there being any evidence on record, it cannot be said with certainty that the plaintiff has any right over half share of the land which fell to the share of Duni Chand and Dilu. It thus appears that both the parties have equal share in the land, in question, i.e. the plaintiff through Sidhu owns 538.23 square metres land and the same amount of land is owned by the defendants. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to go into the merits of the case. It is, however, apparent from the pleadings that even if the claim of the …3… plaintiff that he is owner of the entire property is not accepted to be correct, he is at least owner of half share of the land. No case has been set up by the defendants that there had been any partition between the parties. Therefore, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the suit property. They shall neither raise any construction nor create any third party interest on the suit property, till the disposal of the main suit. Orders of both the Courts below are modified accordingly. 5. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove has been made only for the purpose of deciding this petition and shall not affect the merits of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 6th September, 2010. Record be returned immediately, so that it reaches the Courts below well before the said date. Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case. August 10, 2010(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J