132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 RAM RATTAN & OTHERS ....Appellants Versus VELOCITY CHEMICAL PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Kapur, Advocate Mr. Rajan Kohli, Advocate Ms. Misbah Khan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Kapur, Advocate Mr. Rajan Kohli, Advocate Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate Ms. Ashish Kindu, Advocate Ms. Misbah Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

Appellants/defendants are aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 19.08.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, vide which suit for separate possession by way of partition preferred by respondents/plaintiffs was decreed and judgment and decree dated 21.01.2026, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby first appeal preferred by appellants/defendants was dismissed.

2. Respondents/plaintiffs vide their suit for possession by way of partition had sought partition of land measuring 40 bighas 19 biswas comprised in khewat No.214, khatauni No.242 (khasra numbers duly mentioned in the plaint). It was the claim of respondents/plaintiffs that they are owner in possession to the extent of 253/273 share and all the lands comprised in Khasra Nos.777, 778, 779, 784, 785 to 791, 837 and 851 total measuring 37 bighas 19 biswas were in their possession. It was asserted that khasra No.844 measuring 3 bighas 0 biswa is in possession of appellants/defendants who had purchased the same from one Suba Singh vide sale deed dated 03.06.1996. It was asserted that since land is joint, therefore, it is creating hardship in maintaining and using the suit land and accordingly partition by metes and bounds was sought.

3. Appellants/defendants on the other hand claimed that they are owners in possession of khasra No.844 measuring 3 bighas 0 biswa being the exclusive owner in possession in view of sale deed in their favour by one Suba Singh. It was asserted that specific khasra number was sold to them after oral partition between the co-sharers. They have further claimed that suit property is agricultural property and, therefore, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of suit. From pleadings of parties, following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for separate possession by way of partition by meets and bounds as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit?

OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has neither cause of action nor locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

7. Relief.

4. Both the Courts after considering pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties have concluded that suit land is joint property owned by respondents/plaintiffs and appellants/defendants jointly and since suit property has lost its character being agricultural land, therefore, Civil Courts have jurisdiction over the same and accordingly, had allowed partition of suit property, in suit preferred by respondents/plaintiffs.

5. In the present case, facts are not in dispute. It is the claim of respondents/plaintiffs that they are owner in possession of land measuring 37 bighas 19 biswas out of total land of 40 bighas and 19 biswas. They have also admitted that they are in possession of all the khasra numbers except for khasra No.844 measuring 3 bighas which is stated to be in possession of appellants/defendants. Appellants/defendants in their written statement have also accepted the above noted factual position. Rather they had claimed that suit land stood partitioned by way of oral partition betwe