IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.03.2026 Govind Ram and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Man Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondents.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs;

whereby suit filed by the appellants seeking possession by way of partition, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed the instant suit seeking decree of possession by way of partition of non- agriculture land bearing Rect. No.14, Killa No. 23 (2-19), 22(5-17), Rect No.19, Killa No.17 min (east north corner) (1-12) i.e. 26 Karam X 11 Karam situated within the Revenue estate of village Atohan, Tehsil Palwal, District Palwal (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiffs have 1/2 share and defendants also have 1/2 share in the suit land and the same is yet to be partitioned by metes and bounds.

Plaintiffs had previously filed Civil Suit No. 628 dated 07.11.2007 seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over any part of the suit land and not to change the nature of suit land. Despite that, defendant had succeeded in raising construction over the Rect. No. 14, Killa No. 22 and 23 and accordingly, the said suit came to be withdrawn by the plaintiff vide order dated 03.12.2007. It was further pleaded that in the said previous suit, Local Commissioner had been appointed to inspect the spot who had submitted his Report that there existed construction at their spot.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed a petition for partition of the entire land measuring 137K 3M before the Assistant Collector II Grade, Palwal in which defendants had appeared and submitted their written statement mentioning therein that Killa No.22 and 23 of rect No.14/suit land and Killa No.17 of Rect No.19 (East North Corner) are no more agricultural land. Therefore, Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to entertain partition of the said khasra numbers. Accordingly, Tehsildar had excluded the suit land i.e. Killa No. 22 and 23 from partition and ordered partition of the remaining land between the parties as per their shares. It was further pleaded that the suit land is situated on the main road and is, therefore, many times more valuable than the remaining land. It was averred that defendants, during the pendency of the previous suit for permanent injunction, had raised construction over the suit land and had admitted that property was joint between the parties. Despite that, defendants had refused to partition the property. Plaintiffs had asked the defendants to partition the property many times however, defendants had finally refused to do so on or about 28.09.2008. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 22.11.2008.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Palwal vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013. Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiffs.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Courts below have erred in law in holding that as the property in dispute is recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 as an agricultural land so the same falls within the purview of the land which is to be partitioned by the revenue authorities. It is submitted that although in the Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 the land in question has been shown as agricultural land but the status of the land is to be seen on the day when the present suit was filed and on that d