##PAGE1##

RSA-6097-2016 (O&M) - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 RSA-6097-2016 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.01.2026

Ashu ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Vijay Angrish and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. D.K.Sihag, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-16052-C-2016

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act is for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly

supported by an afÏdavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed

and delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RS A-6097- 2016 (O&M )

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent

judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed

by the appellant for separate possession by way of partition and

permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

DIVYANSHI

2026.01.30 10:39

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-6097-2016 (O&M) - 2 -

2. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent No.1 in Court

today is taken on record.

3. The pleaded case of the appellant in the plaint was that the

plaintiff and defendants are real brother and sisters. The owner of the suit

house, as described in the plaint, was their mother, Raj Dulari. Raj Dulari

had died intestate on 08.12.1996. Father of the parties, namely, Rajinder

Nath Sharma had also died on 16.03.1998. It was contended that as no

Will was executed regarding the suit house, plaintiff being daughter and

class-I heir of owner/Raj Dulari, had become owner to the extent of 1/4th

share alongwith defendants. It was pleaded that plaintiff had requested

defendant No.1 to separate her 1/4th share by metes and bounds but

defendant No.1 had refused to do so. Plaintiff had even served legal

notice upon defendant No.1. It was pleaded that defendants had

threatened to alienate the suit house; thereby causing loss to the plaintiff.

With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 08.02.2010.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the

parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala had dismissed the

suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2014. The Civil

Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2016. Hence,

the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

5. It is inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the appellant

that it is admitted fact on record that the plaintiff is a class-I legal heir of

Raj Dulari alongwith the defendants. It is contended that accordingly,

DIVYANSHI

2026.01.30 10:39

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-6097-2016 (O&M) - 3 -

plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit house. Learned counsel

submits that Family Settlement dated 08.08.2004 set up by the

defendants, as per which plaintiff had allegedly relinquished her share in

the suit property, was never admitted by the appellant. Evidence in this

regard has been misread and misinterpreted by both the District Courts. It

is submitted that the learned District Courts were in error in placing

reliance upon the alleged Family Settlement as no document regarding

the said oral settlement was produced on record by the defendants. As

such, in the absence of any such document, there was no material

evidence available with the District Courts to establish that any such

alleged oral settlement dated 08.08.2004 has taken place between the

parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is

the case of the defendants that two maternal uncles were present at

home at the time of settlement. However, only one maternal uncle has

been examined. It is pointed out that other maternal uncle, who was

examined as DW3, has deposed against defendants, as he stated that oral

settlement was only qua liquid assets and ornaments and not qua the suit