Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Jugal Kishore – Petitioner
Versus
Nirmal & Ors. – Respondents
R.S.A. No. 142 of 2022
Decided On : 08-01-2025
Mr. Harkirat Singh Randhawa Adv.
Municipal records do not prove ownership in partition suits; prior settlements diminish the validity of subsequent claims.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit for partition - Dismissal of the suit for partition filed by appellant-plaintiff claiming 1/5th share in three godowns, previously settled with siblings - Trial Court and First Appellate Court ruled against maintainability due to earlier settlement. Court reiterated that municipal records do not constitute ownership proof and upheld findings from earlier litigation. (Paras 3, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Evidence - Entries in municipal records pertaining to house-tax do not establish title; they may indicate liability for taxes only but lack evidentiary weight in proving ownership. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for partition after earlier settlement awarded him a different property and monetary compensation. Rejecting the plea, it was stated that the suit was not maintainable due to prior agreement among siblings. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The courts found the appellant's claims invalid due to the pre-existing settlement and concluded that there was no evidence of ownership based on municipal records. (Para 11)
Issues: The main issues revolved around the maintainability of the partition suit and the validity of municipal records as proof of ownership. (Para 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The concurrent findings of fact by lower courts were upheld, emphasizing the non-evidentiary nature of municipal records in proving ownership and the appellant's admission of settlement in earlier litigation. (Para 11)
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of partition suit origins and claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument regarding joint ownership evidence. (Para 7) |
| 3. court's reasoning on ownership evidence validity. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. legal precedent on municipal records as evidence. (Para 9) |
| 5. final ruling and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 14.02.2020 and 07.04.2021 passed by the respective Courts of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as “trial Court”) and Additional District Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as “First Appellate Court”), whereby a suit for partition filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff stands dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for partition qua three godowns bearing old M.C. No. 8/131/new M.C. No. SRS B-8/171, godown damaged premises bearing old M.C. No. 8/133/new M.C. No. SRS B-8/173-A and godown damages premises old M.C. No. 8/135/new M.C. No. SRS B-8/173 (B), situated at Gali Dhana Katli Wali, Neharia Bazar, Sirsa, claiming 1/5th share therein being successor of deceased-Banwari Lal (father). It was pleaded that respondent Nos. 1 to 4-defendant Nos. 1 to 4 being brothers of appellant-plaintiff were entitled for 1/5th share each, whereas the fifth brother, i.e. respondent No. 5-defendant No. 5 (Bimal Kishore) having already settled his rights, was not entitled to any claim in the subject property.
3. A detailed written statement was filed on behalf of all the defendants except defendant Nos. 3 (ii) and 3 (iv), who were later proceeded against ex parte. In the written statement, it was pleaded that on an earlier occasion as well, the appellant-plaintiff filed a similar suit for declaration and partition during the life-time of Banwari Lal; though the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.1982, however, on an appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 30.01.1985, whereby the appellant-plaintiff was given one godown bearing No. 3645 alongwith a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash as full and final settlement and thus, the present suit was not maintainable.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of partition, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
3. Whether suit has not properly valued for the purpose of court fee? OPD
4. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
5. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD
6. Whether plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD
7. Relief.“
5. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 14.02.2020, dismissed the suit, filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff.
6. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-plaintiff filed first appeal, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2021 passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal.
7. Impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that both the Courts below went wrong while discarding the entries made in the house-tax assessment, wherein the suit properties were recorded to be under the joint ownership of appellant-plaintiff as well as defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and thus, the suit for partition filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff being co-owner to the extent of 1/5th share, was required to be decreed.
No other argument has been raised on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and having gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff.
9. In the humble opinion of this Court, in view o
