IMPORTANT POINT
.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court reversing the judgment passed by the learned trial Court vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff on the basis of title for possession of property No.BXXX 1505/03-A measuring 1013 square yards was decreed.

Question of law which needs determination is:

“Whether after the property comes within the municipal limits described by the municipal property numbers, sold and purchased with specific boundaries and length and breadth of the property, the concept of co-owner/co-sharer on the basis of joint khata in the revenue record survives or not?”

FACTS

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of property referred to above measuring 1013 sq. yards on the basis of title claiming that he has purchased the property from Kulbir Singh son of Harnam Singh through sale deed dated 28.05.1985. It was specifically pleaded in the plaint that the aforesaid property purchased was consisting of one room and 4 walls bounded as under:-

“East : Kulwant Rai 120'

West : Street : 120'

North : Street : 78'

South : Neighbour : 74'”

3. No doubt, reference was further given that the property is comprised in khasra No.6/24 khewat khatauni No.8/10 as per the Jamabandi for the year 1978-79. The plaintiff asserted that since he is resident of a different city, therefore, the defendant taking advantage of his absence has entered into a illegal possession of the property and trying to raise certain construction.

4. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Khasra No.6/24 comprises of 8 kanal land out of which defendant has purchased only 6th share out of 160 shares and other owners have not been impleaded as party.

5. In other words, the defendant claimed that it has purchased only 6 marla of land (180 sq. yards approximately) out of Khasra No.6/24. In para 4-J of the preliminary objections, it was pleaded that Kulwant Rai had sold the property to Pritam Singh vide sale deed dated 08.03.1982 whereas Pritam Singh sold the property to Kulbir Singh vide sale deed dated 09.11.1982 and Kulbir Singh in-turn sold the property to the plaintiff-Hira Lal vide sale deed dated 28.05.1985. The defendants also claimed that they have purchased the property from Jaswant Rai, Ved Parkash vide sale deed dated 20.08.1987 and they are not in unauthorized possession and their possession is pursuant to the aforesaid sale deed.

6. Learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff after finding that the plaintiff title as well as previous possession is proved from demarcation of the area carried out by the revenue official on 20.08.1987 and further, established from the report of the Local Commissioner dated 03.04.1989 appointed during pendency of the suit. Learned First Appellate Court primarily reverse finding of the learned trial Court on the ground that the parties have purchased the property from a joint khewat and therefore, every owner has become co-sharer and hence, the remedy for the plaintiff-appellant is to file a suit for partition. Learned First Appellate Court has also made certain observations regarding conduct of the plaintiff-appellant which in the considered opinion of this Court is not relevant for the decision of the present appeal, however, briefly being noticed.

(i) Why the plaintiff got demarcation of the property in dispute after about 2 years from the date of purchase of the property (reference is to the demarcation got carried out in the year 1987).

(ii) How it is possible that Pritam Singh handed over the possession of the property in which he was not in possession to Kulbir Singh and Kulbir Singh in-turn had handed over the possession to the plaintiff.

7. At this stage, it will be noticed that the description of the breadth and width of the property purchased by the plaintiff and his predecessor and predecessor of the predecess