IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (115 Date of Decision:-29.01.2026 SURESH KUMAR … Appellant Versus KHARGA RAM AND OTHERS ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. By way of the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) the appellant–defendant has approached this Court, seeking to impugn and set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2023 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanina was affirmed. The learned trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the respondents–plaintiff, directing possession of the suit property by way of partition. The appellant has challenged the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the grounds that the same are manifestly erroneous, legally unsustainable, and bereft of evidentiary support.

2. On a meticulous consideration of the factual matrix as articulated in the plaint, the case of the plaintiff stands delineated with precise clarity, and may be succinctly summarized as follows:-

“The brief facts of the present suit, as set forth by the plaintiffs, are as follows: The immovable property in dispute, measuring 4 kanal 18 marlas, bearing Killa No. 4//14/2 (2-0) Gair Mumkin Khadda and Khasra No. 61/1 (2-18) Gair Mumkin Abadi, comprised in Khewat No. 30, Khatoni No. 31, as per the Jamabandi for the year 2006-07, situated in Village Gomli, Sub-Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendergarh, stands recorded as the joint property of the parties to the suit. The plaintiffs, together with the proforma defendants, claim a 50/153 share therein. It is averred that no formal partition of the said land has been effected either by any court of competent jurisdiction or by amicable family settlement, and the property continues to remain joint in nature.

It is further contended that disputes have consistently arisen between the parties with respect to the management and possession of the property. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants, therefore, seek separate possession of their respective shares. The land in question abuts the main road, constitutes village abadi, is commercial in nature, and possesses significant market value. The defendants, it is alleged, intend to undertake construction over a specific portion exceeding their share and have already amassed construction material for this purpose. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants repeatedly requested that separate possession be accorded to them and that the defendants refrain from unauthorized construction, but all such requests have proven futile. It is in light of these circumstances that the present suit has been instituted.”

3. Upon due service of notice, defendants No. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 appeared and filed their respective written statements, whereas defendant No. 1 failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte, as recorded in the order dated 30.11.2012:-

“It is the case of defendant No. 2, as set forth in the written statement, that the land in question had already been partitioned between the parties in a brotherhood manner. According to defendant No. 2, on 26.05.1993, the suit land and other lands comprised in Khewat No. 34, Khatoni No. 37, bearing Khasra No. 49 (6-18) gair mumkin abadi, as per the Jamabandi for the year 2006-07 of village Gomli and under possession of the parties as gair morusi, were mutually divided among the co-sharers. Pursuant to this brotherhood partition, defendant No. 2 was allotted certain portions of Khasra No. 61/1 and Khasra No. 49, as depicted in the site map dated 15.10.2012 marked ABCDEFGH and JKLM. The defendant has since constructed a pucca house along with a tin shed and chappar on the allotted land, utilizing the premises for residential purposes and for tethering animals, and possesses electricity and water connections therein