In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 1223 of 2009 Date of decision: April 17, 2009 Bhom Singh .. Appellant Vs. Santosh Devi .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J The substantial question of law in this case is “whether the oral transaction of sale could be sufficient to transfer the property in the name of the appellant even in the absence of particulars thereof?” The plaintiff-respondent (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that she is the owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Killa No.126/42 (1-18) and 142/27 (0-10) measuring 2 kanals and 8 marlas to the extent of 40/189 share as fully described in the head note of the plaint and after the death of her husband namely Shish Ram, the mutation No. 6894 was sanctioned in his favour. The deceased husband of the plaintiff along with defendant had jointly raised pucca constructions on the ground floor shown with the letters 'ABCDEF' and on the first floor shown with the letters 'GHIJKL' of the suit land compromised in Killa No.126/42 (1-18), as such plaintiff and the defendant were living peacefully without getting the same partitioned. Now she while claiming the joint ownership with the property has filed the present suit for partition. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he denied all the allegations and submitted that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land comprised in Killa No.126/42 (1-18) as a co-sharer nor in any other capacity whatsoever as such she has no right, title or concern whatsoever therewith at all. R.S.A. No. 1223 of 2009 -2- *** Actually, Shish Ram had handed over the land comprised in Killa No.126/42 (1-18) to the defendant No.1 orally by dint of mutual compromise for the construction of a school and Dharamshala in respect of which the defendant had created a Trust in the year 1975 where the said Shish Ram was one of the trustees along with others without having raised any objection whatsoever by the said Shish Ram. To the contrary, like other trustees, the said Shish Ram and his wife Santosh Devi i.e. the present plaintiff had constructed a room in the memory of their father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively by installing stones in their names. The construction was commenced over the suit land in the year 1975 and completed in the year 1980, as such, the plaintiff and her husband Shish Ram have no concern with the suit property. Replication was also filed. The trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the parties to the suit are joint owners of the disputed property, if so, what are the respective shares? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is out of possession, if so to what effect? OPD 8. Whether the proper Court fee has not been paid? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit/ OPD 10. Relief. R.S.A. No. 1223 of 2009 -3- *** Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rewari vide judgment dated 25.2.2004. However, the appeal against the said judgment was accepted vide judgment dated 3.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Arguments heard. Much stress has been given on the statement Ex.DW11/2 made by Santosh Devi stating that the suit property was handed over by Shish Ram to the defendant through an oral sale transaction, but perusal of the statement Ex.DW11/2 as a whole reveals that the appellant had not admitted any fact with regard to oral sale transaction and has no where stated that the disputed property had been given to the defendant but she in clear words has claimed the suit property to be her property. Even otherwise, no document with regard to transfer of property in the name of the trust or defendant has been put forth. Neither date of alleged family settlement as mentioned in the written statement nor any sale deed has been produced. No such alleged oral transaction of sale has been acted upon in the revenue records. The trust deed Ex.PW6/1 is proved to be bogus document and does not bind the rights of the respondent qua her share in the suit land. The respondent is proved to be co-sharer in the said property on the basis of the revenue record. The appellant being co-sharer also cannot claim adverse possession over the same. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. April 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge