Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
Baldev Singh - Appellant
Versus
Om Singh and others - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 816 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-10-2016
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 - Section 123] - The court allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge. The appellant-plaintiff sought declaration as a joint owner in possession of the land and its partition. The court dismissed the suit, and the appeal was also dismissed. The appellant challenged the mutation of partition primarily on the grounds of forged documents and lack of consent for the partition. The court found that the mutation of partition was entered and sanctioned with the consent of the appellant-plaintiff, and there was no illegality in the process. The court held that no question of law, much less, the substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration as a joint owner in possession of the land and its partition. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, and the appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mutation of partition was entered and sanctioned with the consent of the appellant-plaintiff, and there was no illegality in the process. The court held that no question of law, much less, the substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Issues: The issues included the ownership and possession of the land, the validity of the mutation of partition, and the maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the mutation of partition was entered and sanctioned with the consent of the appellant-plaintiff, and there was no illegality in the process. The court held that no question of law, much less, the substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Final Decision: The present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Darshan Singh, J.
CM No. 1835-C of 2014
This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal.
Heard.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the present application stands allowed and the delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
R.S.A No. 816 of 2014 (O&M)
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Jind, whereby the appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Safidon, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is joint owner in possession to the extent of 1/5th share in the land measuring 171 kanal 19 marlas detailed and described in the head note of the plaint situated within the revenue estate of village Karkhana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind and is entitled to its partition through the revenue officers and mutation of partition bearing no. 800 of 22.09.2001 is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. He has also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating any specific part of the suit land.
3. As per averments in the plaint, Rattan Singh, the father of appellant-plaintiff along with his brothers Deep Chand, Sadhu Ram, Kanha Ram i.e. defendants no. 6 to 8 and heirs of his brother Karam Singh namely Om Parkash, Maha Singh (sons), Smt. Rajpati, Smt Chandro and Roshi (daughters) i.e. defendants no. 1 to 5 were in joint possession of the suit land. Plaintiff and his wife are in service and residing at Kurukshetra. His father Rattan Singh died on 03.05.2001 at Kurukshetra. He executed registered Will dated 02.01.1997 in his favour. On the basis of which the mutation of inheritance no. 799 dated 22.09.2001 was sanctioned in his favour and he has become the joint owner in possession to the extent of 1/5th share in the suit land along with defendants. Rattan Singh, the father of appellant-plaintiff was in his old age and was suffering from cancer of lungs. Plaintiff visited the Halqa Patwari on 14.03.2010 for obtaining the copies of the revenue record. Then, he came to know that the whole khewat has been partitioned vide mutation no. 800 of 22.09.2001 and he was shown to be the owner of separate land measuring 32 kanal 17 marlas detailed and described in the plaint situated at village Karkhana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind and the land measuring 7 kanal 15 marlas was kept joint for passage, watercourse and plots etc. He further pleaded that he has never consented for any partition. The mutation of partition no. 800 dated 22.09.2001 and consequent revenue entries in the jamabandies for the year 2003-04, 2008-09 are null, void and are not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, this suit.
4. Respondents-defendants no. 1 to 6 and 8 filed the joint written statement pleading therein that the partition has taken place and mutation no. 800 was sanctioned. Now, they have come to know that said mutation no. 800 of partition is disturbing the actual and physical possession of the parties. They have no objection if the partition is effected as per the actual possession of the parties and mutation no. 800 is set aside. However, with these pleas, they pleaded for dismissal of the suit.
5. Respondent-defendant no. 7 contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that joint land of the parties has been partitioned with consent of all the co-owners/co-sharers in the joint land. They had filed the joint affidavit before the revenue authority and had got the land partitioned mutually. Mutation no. 800 dated 22.09.2001 has been rightly sanctioned. The suit land has been partitioned mutually with the consent of all the co-sharers. With these pleas, they pleaded for dismissal of the suit.
6. From the pleading of the parties, the follow
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
