IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2792-2024 (O&M)

Reserved on: 25.02.2025 Pronounced on: 01.03.2025 KIDAR NATH . . . .PETITIONER Vs.

MEWA RAM AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Appellant-Kidar Nath in person.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Suit for partition and permanent injunction regarding property in dispute filed by plaintiff (appellant herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.01.2017. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 19.07.2024. Against this concurrent finding, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the Present Regular Second Appeal.

2.1 According to the plaintiff, he along with defendants are co-owners in joint possession over the suit land measuring 1 bigha 15 biswa, detailed in the plaint, situated in Village Ghanaur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, in which he has 2/9 share. Claiming that suit land was joint and that he was unable to enjoy his share, plaintiff sought its partition.

2.2 The stand of the defendants was that suit property had already been partitioned way back in 1951 and that forefathers of the parties had raised construction on their respective shares and ever since, then they are residing separately in their respective houses with their families. In the alternative, they further pleaded that defendants had acquired ownership by way of adverse possession on account of the fact that construction of their houses had been raised more than 57-58 years back, to the knowledge of the plaintiff and so, the possession of the defendants was hostile, aggressive and to the knowledge of the entire world. With this stand and controverting other averments of the plaint, defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

2.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. Trial Court found that suit property had already been partitioned amongst the ancestors of the parties and as such, dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court endorsed the said findings.

3. Assailing the aforesaid findings, the plaintiff-appellant, who has argued in-person before this Court, contends that Courts below have not been able to appreciate the evidence in right perspective in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the partition and particularly, when the revenue record still shows the suit property to be joint of the parties.

4. After hearing the appellant at length and going through the paperbook, this Court does not find merit in this appeal.

5. In order to arrive at the conclusion that suit property had already been partitioned, ld. First Appellate Court has referred to the cross- examination of the plaintiff himself. It will be relevant to reproduce the observations made by the First Appellate Court in this regard, which reads thus:

“15. Plaintiff Kidar Nath has examined himself and reiterated the version of plaint. In cross-examination he stated that he has never got demarcation of suit land. He does not know since how long Mewa Ram was residing in his house. However, he added that house was constructed by his father and Mewa Ram who is younger brother of his father and is residing there. His father and his paternal uncle had separated before his marriage. He is residing at Zirakpur since 2014. He denied if Mewa Ram had himself constructed pacca house. He does not know when his father and Mewa Ram partitioned the property and since when they started residing separately. He admitted that in the site plan Ex.P6 his plot and house is shown as CDGH and that of Mewa Ram and Ram Chand as DEFG i.e., house of both of them are shown separately. In further cross-examination he stated that he is in possession of 2/9 share out of disputed land. He has 2/9 share in khasra no.898 which is Roori. He admitted that in khasra no.972 all the cosharers have raised their houses but he could not tell number of houses. The houses of legal heirs of Ram Lal, who purchased property from A