RSA No.2352 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2352 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Bachan Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Manohar Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.6971-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 48 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2352 of 2008(O&M) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby it decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for declaration that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No.4 to 6 are exclusive owners of the suit land and that defendants No.1 to 3 or anybody else have no concern with the aforesaid land and further for issuance of permanent injunction that defendants No.1 to 3 be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No.4 to 6 from the suit land forcibly, illegally and without due process of law and restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 to 6 over the above said land. RSA No.2352 of 2008(O&M) 2 As per the averments made in the plaint, originally one Bahadur Chand son of Sant Ram resident of village Kasba Bharal was the owner and in possession of land measuring 38 kanals 8 marlas situated in revenue estate of village Kasba Bharal and on his death, mutation No.4308 of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his LRs i.e. Pritam Kaur widow, Bachan Kaur, Raj Kaur and Bhinder Kaur daughters and Buta Singh, his son and after sanctioning of the mutation, Pritam Kaur, Joginder Kaur and Raj Kaur sold the land measuring 14 kanals 17 marlas comprised in Khata No194/287 and 195/288, Khasra No.3250/11-0 and 33535/3248/3-17 to the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No.4 to 6 vide registered sale deed No.2432 dated 19.9.1975 for a consideration of Rs.7,000/- and delivered the actual possession of the same to the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants No.4 to 6 for which mutation of sale was also sanctioned in their favour. It was alleged that Kartar Kaur daughter of Bahadur Chand sold land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.194/287 Khasra No.3251/1/4-4 to the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 to 6 vide sale deed No.716 dated 23.7.1976 and put them into possession and mutation was also sanctioned in their favour. It was further averred that in this way, the plaintiffs became the owners in possession of the suit property but defendants No.1 to 3 were bent upon to dispossess the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 to 6 from the suit property for which they have no right. Hence, the suit. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit. It was admitted that earlier Bahadur Chand was the owner of the land in dispute Sanctioning of mutation of inheritance by Bahadur Chand in favour of his LRs was also admitted. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 to 6 with the help of the revenue officials got registered the sale deed by playing a fraud and the same are void, invalid and non RSA No.2352 of 2008(O&M) 3 est. The mutation was also got sanctioned on the basis of these void sale deeds with the connivance of the revenue officials with a mala fide intention to grab the property of defendants No.1 to 3. It was further alleged that defendants No.1 to 3 had filed a suit for setting aside the aforesaid sale deeds which was pending in the Court at Malerkotla. The other averments of the plaint were contested. The additional objections were also raised and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. The trial Court while deciding the suit held that sale made by Pritam Kaur and Raj Kaur was beyond their share and therefore, the plaintitts were not entitled to the declaration. However, under issues No.2, it was held that the plaintiffs were in settled possession and therefore, they cannot be dispossessed illegally and forcibly except in due course of law. Resultantly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration was dismissed but it was decreed in their favour for permanent injunction. Aggrieved against the dismissal of their suit, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2.11.2007 and the plaintiffs were also held entitled to the decree for declaration declaring them owners of land measuring 18 kanals 12 marals to be treated as a share from the total khewat. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, defendants No.1 to 3 have filed the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Undisputedly, Pritam Kaur, Joginder Kaur and Raj Kaur have collectively 14 kanals 8 marlas of land out of total land of 38 kanals 8 marlas whereas vide sale deed dated 19.9.1975 they had alienated 14 kanals 17 marlas i.e they had sold more land than that of their share. RSA No.2352 of 2008(O&M) 4 However, the Lower Appellate Court has rightly granted relief of declaration to the plaintiff-respondents to the extent of the shares which their vendors had in the joint holding. It is also well settled that the sale of specific numbers by a co-sharer can be considered as a sale from joint holding, not exceeding the share of the vendors so long khewat of co-sharers has not been partitioned by metes and bounds and the purchaser from a co-sharer can be considered as a co-sharer. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the Lower Appellate Court was right in law while declaring the respondents as owners of land measuring 18 kanals 12 marlas purchased by them from the legal representatives of Bahadur Chand to be treated as a share from the total khewat. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to find fault in the impugned judgment and decrees. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 24, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE