136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4276-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 LAL CHAND NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS ....Appellants Versus VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

CM-15732-C-2025 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 14 days in refiling the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Main Case The present appeal has been preferred by appellants/defendants who are aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29.04.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide which appeal preferred by plaintiffs/respondents against judgment and decree dated 12.09.2018 was allowed and suit preferred by plaintiffs/respondents to seek partition was decreed.

2. Facts in the present case are not much in dispute. Plaintiffs/respondents and appellants/defendants both are claiming their rights through Rattan Lal and Sita Devi. Admittedly, suit property was owned by Rattan Lal who died on 18.07.1982. The suit property was succeeded by Sita Devi wife of Rattan Lal who also died on 25.07.2002. Plaintiffs/respondents have claimed to have succeeded estate of Sita Devi and accordingly, plaintiff/respondent No.1 claimed 1/7th share and plaintiffs/respondents No.2 to 4 claimed 4/7^th share of suit property. It was further asserted that appellants/defendants No.1 to 4 are owners to the extent of 1/7th share and appellants/defendants No.5 to 8 are owners to the extent of 1/7th share respectively and, therefore, plaintiffs/respondents had sought partition.

3. On the other hand, appellants/defendants No.1 to 8 claimed that they have become owners of suit property by virtue of Will dated 27.02.2001 by Sita Devi. Plaintiffs/respondents also challenged Will dated 27.02.2021 to be forged and fabricated. Both the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.

4. Following issues were framed from the pleadings of parties :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of partition by way of possession, as prayed for? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD

6. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is time barred? OPD

7. Relief.

5. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided against plaintiffs/respondents, whereas issues No.3 to 6 were decided against appellants/defendants being not pressed and accordingly, suit for partition preferred by plaintiffs/respondents was dismissed by Court of first instance. It is pertinent to note that learned Court of first instance while passing judgment and decree dated 12.09.2018 concluded that Sita Devi had died intestate and no will was executed by her as appellants/defendants had failed to prove due execution of will by producing the original one as well as by examining attesting witnesses. Even though Sita Devi was held to be owner of suit property, the relief of partition was denied by Court of first instance to the plaintiffs/respondents on the ground of allotment of suit property and since there is no conveyance deed in favour of Rattan Lal/Sita Devi, therefore, suit property cannot be partitioned.

6. It is worth noticing that against finding of learned Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2018 wherein it was held that Sita Devi had died without executing any will, no appeal or cross-objection was ever filed by present appellants/defendants. The finding of Court of first instance was duly accepted by appellants/defendants. It is worth noticing that even the First Appellate Court has found that both the parties are co- owners i