##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

RSA-162-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 05.03.2026

Pankaj . . . . Appellant

Vs.

Smt. Devi and others . . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. M.S. Kundu, Advocate, for the appellant

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

CM-504-C-2025

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and the delay of 04 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

RSA-162-2025(O&M)

The defendant in the suit has approached this Court in the

present Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment of reversal passed

by the First Appellate Court. The suit filed by the plaintiffs (respondents

herein) for possession by way of partition was dismissed by the learned

Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2021. However, the

appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed by the learned First

Appellate Court on 27.09.2024 and a decree for partition along with

consequential relief of permanent injunction was passed in their favour.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Rajender Singh was the owner in

possession of two houses situated within the abadi deh of village Kasandi,

Sub Tehsil Khanpur Kalan, District Sonipat, as described in paragraph No.1

of the plaint and depicted in the site plans placed on record. Upon the

death of Rajender Singh, the said property devolved upon his legal heirs.

Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of Rajender Singh, plaintiff No.2 is his daughter

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:14:25 :::

RSA-162-2025 2026:PHHC: 033890

and plaintiff No.3 as well as the sole defendant are his sons. Thus, all the

parties are Class-I legal heirs of the deceased Rajender Singh.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming that after the death of

Rajender Singh, the property was inherited jointly by all the legal heirs and

the plaintiffs together were entitled to a 3/4th share in the suit property. It

was further alleged that the defendant, being a strong-headed person, had

broken open the lock of one of the houses and had removed certain articles

lying therein. Since the defendant had refused to partition the property

amicably, the plaintiffs sought a decree for possession by way of partition

along with permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering

with their rights.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant. The primary defence

raised was that the property had already been partitioned amongst the

parties in the past and each of them was in possession of their respective

shares. It was further pleaded that plaintiff No.1 (mother) was residing with

plaintiff No.3, whereas plaintiff No.2 was residing in her matrimonial home,

and therefore, the present suit was not maintainable.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial

Court framed the necessary issues and after appreciating the evidence led

by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove

the joint nature of the suit property and consequently dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the plaintiffs preferred

an appeal. The learned First Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts,

re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion

that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were not sustainable in law.

The First Appellate Court noticed that it was not disputed that Rajender

Singh was the owner in possession of the suit houses and that the parties to

the litigation were his legal heirs. Therefore, on the death of Rajender

Singh, the property devolved upon his Class-I heirs in equal shares.

7. The First Appellate Court further observed that the defendant

had taken a specific plea that the property had already been partitioned

Page 2 of 4

2 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:14:26 :::

RSA-162-2025 2026:PHHC: 033890

through a family settlement. Once such a plea of prior partition was raised

by the