R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 06, 2009 Sharanjit Kaur and others ...........Appellants Versus Sukhdev Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.M.S.Dhami, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the respondents ** Sabina, J. Sukhdev Singh and others filed a suit for separate vacant possession to the extent of 3/4th share in the property in dispute by way of partition by metes and bounds. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dasuya vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2005. The appeal filed by the defendant-Baldev Singh (through his legal representatives) was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 6.10.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “2. The property in dispute, description of which is given in the head of the plaint was originally owned and possessed by Hari Singh, father of plaintiff Nos. 1,2 and defendant and husband of plaintiff No.3. After the death of Hari Singh, suit property was inherited by plaintiffs and defendant in equal shares. The suit R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 2 property is still joint, although the plaintiffs and defendants under their mutual arrangements are occupying the suit property separately. The house shown in annexure I is in possession of the plaintiffs, where as residential construction shown in annexure III is in possession of the defendant. The plaintiffs are in possession of two rooms shown in annexure II. The construction shown in annexure I and III is old construction, whereas construction shown in annexure II is new one and raised by the plaintiffs after spending huge amount. After the death of Hari Singh in the year 1994, defendant Sukhdev Singh filed civil suit claiming his share to the extent of ½, which was dismissed on 19.9.1996. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by Ld.District Judge. It was pleaded that after the death of Hari Singh, mutation of his estate was sanctioned in the name of plaintiffs and defendant in equal share. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs cannot get benefit of their share in the suit property without partition by metes and bounds, which necessitated the filing of the present suit. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant who appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that defendant is owner to the extent of ½ share in the property of his father Hari Singh and he is also recorded to be owner to the extent of ½ share in the record of Municipal Committee; suit is not properly valued. On merits, admitting the joint ownership of the properties, it was pleaded that plaintiff No.1 an defendant have inherited the property of their father in equal shares, thus question of share of defendants No. 2 an 3 in the suit property R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 3 does not arise. Denying the other averments of the plaint, it was pleaded that development over the suit property was made out of the joint income of the parties and plaintiff No.1 has no right to claim specific portion out of the suit property. Even otherwise every person who is developing a joint property, raises construction at his own risk. As regards sanctioning of the mutation in favour of all the legal heirs. It was pleaded that mutation was wrongly entered in the name of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. Other averments were specifically denied and in the last prayer was made for dismissal of the suit with costs." On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for separate vacant possession over disputed property to the extent of ¾ share by way of partition?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not properly verified?OPD 3. Whether the share of defendants in the disputed property is to the extent of ½ share ?OPD. 4. Relief". After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. Plaintiffs by way of the present suit sought parition of the property in dispute. The case of the defendant-Baldev Singh was that he was owner of the suit property to the extent of half share. In previous litigation between the parties, the defendant had claimed half share in the property left by deceased-Hari Singh. However, the said suit filed by R.S.A. No. 277 of 2009 4 defendant-Baldev Singh was dismissed and the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was maintained by the appellate Court. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly rejected the plea of the appellants to the effect that they were owners of half share of the suit property. So far as the assessment record of the Municipal Committee is concerned, no reliance could be placed on the same to hold that the defendant-Baldev Singh was owner to the extent of half share. The said record does not furnish any proof of ownership or title and is merely maintained with regard to entries of payment of house tax. The suit property was, admittedly, owned by Hari Singh. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 (Sukhdev Singh and Jatinder Kaur) and defendant (Baldev Singh) are sons of Hari Singh,whereas, plaintiff No.3 (Rawal Kaur) is widow of Hari Singh. The plaintiffs as well as defendant- Baldev Singh inherited the property left by Hari Singh in equal shares. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below do not call for any interference. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court . Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 06, 2009 arya