IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :02.04.2026 LEELA RANI ... APPELLANT VERSUS NIRMAL RANI ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, as well as the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the suit for possession by way of partition filed by the respondent–plaintiff was decreed and the first appeal preferred by the appellant–defendant was dismissed.

2. It is the case of the respondent–plaintiff that the suit property was previously owned by Smt. Shakuntala Devi wife of Devi Dass and one Jabru, who sold the said property to the respondent–plaintiff and the appellant– defendant in equal shares vide registered sale deeds dated 18.11.1987 and 29.06.1992. Vide sale deed dated 18.11.1987, land measuring 10 marlas was sold, and vide sale deed dated 29.06.1992, the remaining 2 marlas was sold. It is the case of the respondent–plaintiff that the suit property is still joint between the parties and as the same is now required by the respondent–plaintiff, hence partition was prayed for.

3. Upon notice, appellant–defendant contested the suit and raised various preliminary objections regarding its maintainability. It was asserted that Smt. Shakuntala Devi, wife of Devi Dass, was the owner in possession of the suit property. Admittedly, both the respondent–plaintiff and the appellant– defendant are daughters-in-law of Smt. Shakuntala Devi—the respondent– plaintiff being the wife of Krishan Baldev Handa (son of Devi Dass), and the appellant–defendant being the wife of Dharampal Handa (son of Devi Dass).

4. The case of the appellant–defendant is that Smt. Shakuntala Devi had executed a rent note in favour of her son Dharampal (husband of the appellant–defendant), and he was a tenant over the suit property. It was further pleaded that in the year 1980-81, Dharampal had raised construction on the suit ₹

property by spending approximately 2,00,000/- from his own resources for running business of manufacturing of machine tools under the name and style of M/s Sun Bright Engineering Works. After his death on 14.03.2008, his estate devolved upon the appellant–defendant and his son Sunil Handa. It was further submitted by appellant-defendant that Smt. Shakuntala Devi transferred ownership rights of suit property in favour of both parties in equal shares vide sale deed dated 18.11.1987. That another sale deed dated 26.06.1992, executed by Jabru son of Pala, also transferred land measuring 2 marlas (1 marla each) in favour of the parties. However, it was specifically asserted by the appellant– defendant that land measuring 10 marlas out of the suit property was relinquished by the respondent–plaintiff in favour of Dharampal Handa and the appellant–defendant by way of a family arrangement between the husbands of the parties, namely Krishan Baldev Handa and Dharampal Handa. It was further averred that a partnership firm under the name and style of ‘Satpal Handa and Brothers’, comprising of three partners namely Dharampal Handa, Krishan Baldev Handa and Satpal Handa, was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading gold and silver ornaments, wherein Dharampal Handa had 40% share. The said firm was dissolved in the year 1992–93, and Dharampal Handa relinquished his 40% share in favour of the husband of the respondent–plaintiff. In lieu thereof, the suit property was allegedly relinquished in favour of Dharampal Handa by the husband of the respondent–plaintiff. Since then, it is claimed that Dharampal Handa became the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. Hence, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the f