RSA No.1839 of 1982 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1839 of 1982 Date of Decision: 12.08.2009 Madan Mohan and others ...Appellants VERSUS Smt. Sheela Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Y. K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for possession by partition only on the ground that the vendor of the appellants was recorded as owner of a large piece of land in Khasra No.219/24 (65 Kanals 16 Marlas) and thus the appellants (who had purchased 9/16th share in one part of the Khasra amounting to 3 Kanals) would have to sue for partition of the entire Khasra Number and could not seek this partial partition. The only question of law raised is that learned lower Appellate Court has relied upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, reported as 1981 P.L.J. 204 and the subsequent decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh and others, reported as 2008(4) CCC 002. Both these judgments deal with agriculture land and since this property has now become completely urban, the said judgments would not RSA No.1839 of 1982 -2- be applicable. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that property in dispute is admittedly an urban property which had been the assigned property number by the Municipal Committee, Thanesar. He further argued that the sale deed in favour of the appellants was with respect to a specified walled property which was bounded on two sides by roads and on the remaining two sides by shops/houses. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that on the rest of the Khasra number admittedly there was a Residential Colony and Mandi. He has thus argued that it would be now practically impossible to identify every co-sharer since with urbanisation, many of them had not even got their small purchases mutated in the revenue record. He thus argued that import of the principles of the above mentioned Full Benches decisions into the facts of this case would render irreparable prejudice to the appellant since, in actual fact, he would never be able to get the property partitioned. In my opinion, no such restrictive meaning as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant can be given to the decisions of two Full Benches of this Court which ex-facie deal with the rights of co-sharers in immovable property, and the same are binding precedent. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 12, 2009 JUDGE ashish