IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (104)

RSA-4308-1999(O&M) Reserved on 25.09.2025 Pronounced on 30.10.2025 Manmohan Singh ……Appellant Versus Dharam Singh and Another ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

None for respondent No.1.

Mr. R.K. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2 (i to iii).

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.09.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Anandpur Sahib (Ropar), were set aside and the suit was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking exclusive possession by way of partition to the extent of 1/3^rd share in the Abadi (residential) premises, fully described as Property No. A and Property No. B in the head note of plaint, situated within the Lal Lakir of Village Agampur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

2.1 It was pleaded that the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers and that their father had executed a valid Will dated 16.12.1979 bequeathing his estate equally among them. The agricultural land of the deceased father was mutated equally in their names on the basis of the said Will. It was further alleged that the residential house within the Abadi Deh was also part of the same estate, and when the respondents refused to partition of the same, the present suit was filed. Respondent No.

1 admitted the claim, while respondent No. 2 contested the suit.

2.2 On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

2.3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Court below decreed the suit of the plaintiff. This was so done vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.1995.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant-Pritam Singh (Respondent) filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, who, vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.1999, set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.09.1995 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff (appellant) on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as all the necessary co-sharers were not arrayed as defendants.

2.5 Dissatisfied by the same, the plaintiff (appellant) has knocked the door of this Court by way of filing a regular second appeal praying that the same be accepted, the judgment and decree dated 23.07.1999, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, be set aside and his suit be decreed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned decree of the learned Trial Court on a mere technical ground. It is submitted that there was no specific plea in the written statement regarding non- joinder of necessary parties and no issue was framed on that point. It is further submitted that only the three brothers had any interest in the suit property. It is further argued that the Trial Court correctly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence including admissions and site plans and the fact of entries and electricity bills in the name of the deceased father.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 (i to iii) supports the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court and contends that the Will dated 16.12.1979 was not proved in accordance with law and that no attesting witnesses were examined. He further submits that the appellant deliberately omitted to implead other legal heirs/co-sharers, in particular daughters and other persons recorded in the jamabandi (Ex.P16), whose rights would be directly affected by any decree of partition, rendering the suit liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary pa