R.S.A.No. 808 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 808 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.2.2011 Harpal Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Sulakhan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Sushil Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds of the joint property. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that Bahadur Singh was owner of the property in dispute. Bahadur Singh died in the year 1978 leaving behind plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as his legal representatives. Hence, the suit for partition. Defendants No. 2 to 4, in their written statement, averred R.S.A.No. 808 of 2010 (O&M) 2 that the suit property was ancestral property, which was jointly owned by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Claim of the plaintiffs was admitted by the said defendants. Defendants No.1, 5 and 6, in their written statement, denied that the suit property was originally owned by Bahadur Singh. It was admitted that Bahadur Singh had died in the year 1978 and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and defendants No.1 to 4 are his sons and daughters. The other contents in the plaint were denied. It was averred that the suit property was exclusively owned by defendant No.1, who had sold the same to defendant Nos. 5 and 6 vide sale deed dated 10.6.1996. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the property in dispute is joint of the parties and if so what are their respective shares? OPP. 2. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition as claimed? OPP 5-A. Whether the plaintiff are entitled to a decree for partition of joint property denoted by letters ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO as shown in the site plan of the defendants ? OPD R.S.A.No. 808 of 2010 (O&M) 3 6.. Relief.” Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 4.2.2005. A preliminary decree to the extent of 1/8th share each of the plaintiffs, defendants No.2 to 4 and 1/8th share of defendants No.5 and 6 in lieu of share of defendant No.1 was passed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 preferred an appeal, the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 23.7.2009. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.1, 5 and 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendants No.1 to 4 are the children of deceased Bahadur Singh, whereas, plaintiff No.4 is the widow of Bahadur Singh. Suit property was owned by Bahadur Singh, who died in the year 1978. After his death, suit property was inherited by his legal heirs. Defendant No.1, in his cross- examination, admitted that the suit property was allotted in the name of Bahadur Singh. Thus, the Courts below rightly held that the suit property was earlier owned by Bahadur Singh and after his death it had been inherited by his legal heirs. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, who had purchased the suit property from defendant No.1, thus, stepped into the shoes of defendant No.1 and were liable to get the share of Harpal Singh-defendant No.1 vide the sale deed executed in their R.S.A.No. 808 of 2010 (O&M) 4 favour. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 02, 2011 anita