RSA No.522 of 2008 ( 1 ) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 25.02.2008. Balbir Kaur ... Appellant Versus Buta Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Onkar Singh,Advocate,for the appellant. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This is plaintiff's Regular Second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the owners in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal comprised in Khasra No.225 (1-0), 230 (0-6) and 231 (0-6), situated in village Pattarkalan, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. It was alleged in the plaint that the suit property was purchased by Tej Kaur from Ujjagar Singh, vide sale deed dated 06.12.1977 and after the purchase, a mutation was sanctioned and she was put in possession of the property in question. She has also raised construction of a room, a toilet, installed a Handpump and also planted trees. Tej Kaur died and after her death, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 succeeded to her estate being class one heirs and entitled to 1/5th share each. It was also pleaded that defendant No.1 is RSA No.522 of 2008 ( 2 ) interfering in the possession of the plot and accordingly, injunction was sought on that basis. Defendant No.1 contested the rights of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 and it is stated that the plaintiff has not filed fresh jamabandi and correct revenue record and has withheld the relevant information from the Court. Besides various preliminary objections, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have no concern with the suit property. According to the defendant, the property was owned by Nirmal Singh,Santokh Singh and Ajit Singh. It is further stated that defendant purchased 12 marlas of land out of 16 marlas held by the aforesaid persons, vide registered sale deed dated 24.08.1999, for a consideration of Rs.1, 20,000/- and since then he is in possession of the same. Defendant No.5 in her written statement supported the case of the plaintiff, whereas other defendants did not file any written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 07.03.2003:- 1. Whether plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are owners in possession of the property in dispute? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP RSA No.522 of 2008 ( 3 ) 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether site plan attached with the plaint is incorrect? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 8. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 9. Relief. The trial Court found that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was only with regard to khasra No.225, whereas the declaration of ownership is sought in respect to Khasra Nos.225, 230 and 231. The suit has been filed without impleading the other co-sharers of the property, who jointly owned the entire area measuring 46 kanals 7 marlas. The trial Court also observed that Tej Kaur was not in possession of exclusive khasra number and, thus, the plaintiff has become only a co-sharer in the entire property and her remedy is a suit for partition. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree RSA No.522 of 2008 ( 4 ) dated 22.09.2007. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Jalandhar. The same has also been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.1.2008 with costs assessed at Rs.500/-. The learned Lower Appellate Court while maintaining the findings recorded by the learned trial Court further came to the conclusion that from the copies of the jamabandi for the years 1984-85 and 1994-95, it appears that the suit property is owned by a number of co-sharers including Dhanti, Bagga Singh, Manohar Singh etc. The learned Lower Appellate Court has also held that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties viz. Co-sharers. It is against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court the appellant has come up in this second appeal before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when the plaintiff is in possession of particular khasra number, she was not entitled to implead all the co-sharers as party. He has further contended that initially her name was incorporated in the jamabandi after the purchase of the property, but later on, it has been deleted and, accordingly, suit for declaration alone was maintainable. He has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Biru and another Vs. Suraj Bhan and others, AIR 1983, Punjab and Haryana, 347, wherein RSA No.522 of 2008 ( 5 ) this Court has observed that where all the legal representatives of a party are not brought on record and the suit is contested by one or some of them, then it was presumed that it has been contested on behalf of all the legal representatives unless there is fraud or collusion. This judgment does not improve the case of the appellant in any manner. In the present case, there are number of co-sharers and none of the co-sharers were represented before the Courts below as having not been impleaded as a party. In the case before the Full Bench, the original owner was the party and, thus, the Court found that even if any legal representative is not impleaded as party, it does not, in any manner, affect the suit. As far the question of declaration is concerned, according to the appellant's own case, initially her name was incorporated in the jamabandi and thereafter, the same was deleted. There is remedy of rectification of the jamabandi. However, no such plea has been raised in the plaint. Neither any such issue has been framed, nor any evidence led to this effect. Since the plaintiff has been declared to be a co-sharer, her remedy was/is a suit for partition. No substantial question of law arises. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 25.02.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO