IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.11352-C of 2009 & RSA No.433 of 1982 (O&M) Decided on : 14.10.2009 Baldev Singh ... Appellant versus Mukhtiar Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent for joint possession of the property in dispute holding him to be a son of Niranjan Singh and also holding that the property, in the hands of Niranjan Singh, was ancestral. The first question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is whether the suit for joint possession is maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the ld. Appellate Court has rightly held that in Punjab a son cannot sue for partition during the life-time of his father. Learned counsel further argued that a suit for joint possession would not RSA No.433 of 1982 -2- also lie. Apart from that learned counsel also challenged the finding regarding the property being coparcenary. The said finding is a pure finding of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence, so as to render them perverse. As regards the question of law, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to counter the arguments. He has, however, urged that now Niranjan Singh has died and in any case the respondent would be entitled to file a suit for partition. In my opinion, the alternate contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be ignored. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the decree for joint possession of half share of land passed in favour of the respondent is set aside even while clarifying that the question of fact regarding coparcenary nature of the property has been confirmed and that the respondent would be at liberty to file a suit for partition of the property. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any stand disposed of. October 14, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE