RSA No. 5447 of 2014 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 5447 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of decision : 29.7.2019

...

Jagmohan @ Mohan

................Appellant

vs.

Rajbir and others

.................Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan

Argued by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5.

...

H. S. Madaan, J.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that, plaintiffs- Rajbir

aged about 44 years, Smt. Nimbo aged about 74 years, Smt. Roshni

aged about 55 years, Smt. Kamlesh aged about 40 years, Smt. Sudesh

aged about 38 years – all daughters of Ranpat, Smt. Sunita aged

about 25 years, daughter of Smt. Murti, daughter of Ranpat through

Rajbir, their Special Attorney, all residents of village Pur, Tehsil

Khera, District Bhiwani, had brought a suit against defendants,

namely, Jagmohan @ Mohan – son, Smt Phoolpati, Smt. Santosh

daughters, of Ranpat, residents of village Pur, Tehsil Bawani Khera,

District Bhiwani; Satbir, Jagdish, Jai Bhagwan sons, Smt. Shanti

widow, Smt. Kamlesh, Smt. Sheela daughters of Amrit; Pawan and

BANITA CHUGH

2019.08.02 16:06

I am the author of this

document

RSA No. 5447 of 2014 -2-

Kulwinder sons, Smt. Mandeep daughter, of Ramrati; Richhpal and

Bhale sons of Gollu; Jagbir, Mahabir, Jaibir, Jagdish, Ramesh and

Joginder – all sons of Gopal, all residents of village Pur, Tehsil

Bawani Khera, Disrict Bhiwani, seeking possession by way of

partition of the suit property.

As per version of the plaintiffs, land measuring 6 kanal 1

marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 147, Khatoni No. 206 situated at

village Pur, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani, is jointly owned

and possessed by the parties to the suit; that earlier a family partition

had taken place between the previous owners namely, Ranpat,

predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3;

that Ranpat was given the area shown in red colour, whereas Amrit

predecessor in interest of defendants No. 4 to 12 was given the area

shown in yellow colour, whereas one Gollu predecessor in interest of

defendants No. 13 to 20 was given an area shown in blue colour in

the site plan attached with the plaint; that no formal partition between

the parties had taken place between the parties, as such there

remained a continuous dispute between them. Ranpat had raised

some construction in his share and the same was being used by said

Ranpat and his legal heirs. Of late, defendant No.1 threatened to

forcibly occupy the share of Ranpat. Then Ranpat filed a civil suit

against defendant No.1 Jagmohan @ Mohan, who happened to be his

son. The suit was dismissed and an appeal against judgment and

decree of the trial Court is pending; that actual partition of the

disputed land had not taken place and it is being used for residential

BANITA CHUGH

2019.08.02 16:06

I am the author of this

document

RSA No. 5447 of 2014 -3-

purposes; that the plaintiffs asked the defendants several times to get

the joint property partitioned by metes and bounds, but to no effect.

Hence, the plaintiffs brought the suit in question.

On notice, only defendant No.1 put in appearance to offered

a contest. In the written statement filed by him, he had taken up

various legal objections, to wit that the suit was not maintainable in

the present form; that no cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to

bring the suit and plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit and

that the plaintiffs were estopped by their own act and conduct to file

the suit. On merits, such defendant contended that Ranpat, father of

the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 i.e. predecessor in interest of

defendants No. 4 to 12 and Dholu @ Bholu, predecessor in interest of

defendants no. 13 to 20, had been joint owners in possession in