IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on 31.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on 01.12.2025 BIHARI LAL ... APPELLANT VERSUS PARTAP SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

****

PARMOD GOYAL , J.

1. Plaintiff–appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1989 passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Mahendergarh, whereby the suit for possession by way of partition filed by the plaintiff–appellant was dismissed and also by the judgment and decree dated 07.02.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff–

appellant was also dismissed.

2. The plaintiff–appellant had sought possession of the suit property by way of partition, claiming that the suit property is joint property in which the plaintiff–appellant and the proforma defendants have 1/3^rd share, and that the plaintiff–appellant along with defendant Nos. 6 and 7 intended to raise construction over their share in the joint property. Proforma defendant Nos. 6 and 7, however, were given up before Court of first instance.

3. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 5, who took multiple preliminary objections. On merits, it was asserted that the suit property had already been partitioned in the year 1969. It was stated that in that partition, Khasra Nos. 343/1-1 and 344/1-1 had fallen to the share of the defendants, where they had constructed their houses. It was further asserted that Khasra Nos. 341/0-11 and 169/0-3 were allotted to the plaintiff–appellant and the proforma defendants. The suit for partition was thus resisted on the ground that the suit land was no longer joint after the 1969 partition.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants are co-sharer in the land in dispute? If so to what effect? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?

OPD.

5. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for partial partition? OPD

7. Relief.”

5. Issue Nos. 1 and 6 were decided against the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff–appellant was not entitled to seek partition as he had not joined all the parties having an interest in the joint property. Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 were decided against the defendants, yet the suit was dismissed accordingly. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court.

6. The simple case of the plaintiff–appellant is that the suit land, measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas, is joint property owned by the plaintiff–appellant, his brother, and his mother to the extent of 1/3rd share, and that the defendants have encroached upon the suit property falling to share and, therefore, they had sought partition and possession of suit property to their share.

7. Perusal of the evidence shows that both PW-1 (plaintiff–appellant) and PW-2, who were examined by the plaintiff–appellant, admitted that it is the defendants who have constructed a house after raising a boundary wall over the property in dispute.

8. In order to prove their case, the defendants examined four witnesses. Through their evidence, the defendants attempted to assert that Khasra Nos. 343/344 had fallen to the share of Mangru and Kanha, the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants. However, it is the own admission of defendant No. 1, Partap Singh, while appearing as DW-4, that he had not purchased any specific Khasra number but only a share in the suit land. Therefore, the plea that the suit land stood partitioned in 1969 was neither pressed nor proved.

9. As far as the jointness of the suit property is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The only ground on which the suit has been dismissed is that plainti