IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order:20.02.2025 Teja Singh and others .Appellants Versus Kamaljit Kaur and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, Ms. Shikha, Advocate Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellants.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE (Oral)

1. BRIEF FACTS

1.1 The appellants before this court are a decree holders in a suit for partition of the joint property. One of the co-sharers, namely Sh. Gurcharan Singh sold some part of the property in favour of his son-in-law Sh. Balbir Singh Bathal, who in turn sold the property to Smt. Kamaljit Kaur, the objector, vide registered sale deed dated 03.05.2012. The total area of the plot which has been sold is little more than 3 marlas that is nearly 100 sq. yds. Smt. Kamaljit Kaur has already constructed her house and is residing with the family.

1.2. It has been found by the First Appellate Court that the parties are colluding together in order to defraud the purchaser, namely, Smt. Kamaljit Kaur. The operative part of the order passed by the First Appellate Court reads as under:-

“20. Another striking feature of this case is that plaintiff no.2/DH Nirvair Singh is residing in his house on the southern side of the house of the Objector and factum regarding purchase of plot in question by Objector was within his knowledge, since Objector erected her house and completed the same in the year 2013. During his cross-examination dated 04.09.2018, AW1 Nirvair Singh deposed that he filed suit for partition in the year 2004 and placed on file site plan Ex.O18 in the partition suit. He further stated that main street shown in the site plan is not shown in the record as it falls within the abadi. He further admitted that site plan Ex.O17 is correctly showing the situation of the suit property and then volunteered that Patwari cannot show abadi street on the north of the suit property as the same is lying within lal lakeer (red line). He also testified that at the spot, there is no passage from Point A to A1 in the site plan Ex.O17. He further deposed that he is residing in the house constructed by his father in the year 1960 and he further raised construction over the same in southern side in the year 1997. He further stated that he is using passage Mark A to A2 to approach his house. Interestingly, AW1 Nirvair Singh further testified that Objector has constructed three storey house towards northern side of the suit property and covered 3.25 marla. In his further cross-examination dated 13.09.2018, he deposed that he has not filed any appeal against judgment passed by Sh. Gopal Arora, the then CJJD, Kharar. He feigned ignorance regarding para no.11 of the said judgment, wherein his relief of injunction was declined and Issue no.2 was decided against the plaintiff. He further admitted that as per the order of the court, Raghbir Singh, Halqua Kanungo had visited the spot and submitted his report dated 30.09.2013 regarding proposed partition. He also admitted that as per said report, there was no need to remove any construction of any party. He stated that he does not know if the said report was submitted by keeping the possession of the parties intact for proposed partition. He further stated that he had filed objections against the said report and also conceded that against his objections, no reply was filed by Gurbachan Singh and others. He further deposed that the court had ordered the Kanungo to revisit the spot and against the second report submitted by Raghbir Singh Kanungo, Gurbachan Singh etc. have not raised any objection. It is significant to note that Nirvair Singh admitted that Balbir Singh Bhathal is son-in-law of his uncle and Harbans Kaur is her aunt. He further deposed that in the year 2012, when Objector started constructing his house, he had not objected in writing but volunteered that he orally requested them to stop construction as the case was pending. He further stated that he has not m